State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Nalam Appa Rao vs The Andhra Bank on 29 July, 2010
A BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD. F.A. 815/2010 against CCSR 387/2009, Dist. Forum, Kakinada. Between: Nalam Appa Rao S/o. Late Narayana Murthy D.No. 42-5-8, Poosalavari Street Near Lakshmi Talkies Kakinada. *** Appellant/ Complainant. And The Andhra Bank Kathipudi Rep. by its Branch Manager Kathipudi, Sankhavaram (M) *** Respondent/ Opposite Party Counsel for the Appellant: Smt. K. Swarna Seshu Counsel for the Resp: Admission Stage. CORAM: HONBLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT & SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
THURSDAY, THIS THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND TEN Oral Order: (Per Honble Justice D. Appa Rao, President) *****
1) Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the material on record, we are of the opinion that the matter can be disposed of at the stage of admission itself.
2) Appellant is an unsuccessful complainant.
3) The case of the complainant in brief is that he and his sister Smt. Kodavali Satyavathi are owners of a house at Kakinada having got under registered sale deed executed by their mother in which he was having half share. One Gangadhar approached him for purchase of property and requested him to give registered sale deed in order to obtain legal opinion which he gave it to him. Later when he questioned he stated that he misplaced the documents and could not trace out. In fact he learnt that Ganghadhar deposited the above title deeds by forging his signature, impersonated him, took loan from the bank. When he received notice from the opposite party bank he got issued a registered notice bringing the above said facts directing it to return original documents. There was no response. He filed O.S. No. 2/2004 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Prathipadu seeking mandatory injunction to return the original documents interalia pleading that he did not borrow any amount nor stood as guarantor of the property. He never created any collateral security. While the said suit was pending the opposite party bank filed O.A. No. 164/2004 on the file of Debt Recovery Tribunal in which he was impleaded as party on which he filed his written statement.
In the meantime Ganghadar paid the amount to the opposite party bank and closed the loan account. Despite repeated requests for return of documents it did not return. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite party bank, he filed the complaint for directing it return documents besides compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and costs.
4) The Dist. Forum rejected the complaint at threshold opining that the question whether Gangadhar had deposited the title deeds of the complainant by forging and by impersonating him as complainant and whether he was entitled to return of documents is a question involved in the suit filed by him in O.S. No. 2/2004. Equally the complainant could as well obtain documents from Debt Recovery Tribunal in O.A. 164/2004 by taking appropriate steps. Even otherwise the complainant is not a consumer vis--vis the opposite party bank. He is neither a loanee nor he deposited the documents and so saying rejected the complaint.
5) Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate either facts or law in correct perspective. The entire amount due to the opposite party bank had been cleared and he was entitled to the documents as of right.
It ought to have seen that Gangadhar by impersonation and forgery deposited his title deed with the opposite party bank and on receipt of amount, it ought to have returned the documents to him.
6) Along with appeal he filed a petition to condone delay of 98 days in preferring the appeal. Since, we are disposing of the matter at the stage of admission itself the delay is condoned.
7) The complaint is that one Ganghadar by impersonating him and forging his signature deposited his title deeds and borrowed the amount. He alleges that as Ganghadhar has discharged the said loan, he was entitled to the documents from the bank. It is not known under what capacity said Gangadhar had deposited his title deeds in the bank. Admittedly the complainant did not deposit the said documents, nor borrowed the amount. Even assuming that the entire loan was discharged the bank could not have returned the documents of title to the complainant as he was not the person who deposited those documents. The question whether there was impersonation or forgery cannot be considered in summary proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act. In fact the complainant is not a customer of the bank. There is no consumer relationship between them.
8) Even otherwise, the very complainant filed O.S. No. 2/2004 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Prathipadu seeking mandatory injunction for return of the original documents. When the said suit is pending for the self same relief, he cannot file a complaint before the Forum against the bank seeking return of documents. Obviously the reliefs sought for in O.S. 2/2004 as well as in complaint are one and the same. Even otherwise he did not implead Gangadhar against whom he made allegations of impersonation and forgery. Even in his own complaint he stated that the bank has initiated proceedings before Debt Recovery Tribunal and impleaded him as one of the parties. It is not known why the complainant did not take this plea inviting an order from the Debt Recovery Tribunal for return of documents. He could have opposed the settlement between the parties. He could have equally preferred an appeal against the said order. He has already initiated an affective and efficacious remedy. In the circumstances he cannot file a complaint against the bank alleging deficiency in service on their part, more so, when the proceedings before the DRT and suits were initiated. We do not see any mis-appreciation of fact or law by the Dist. Forum in this regard.
9) In the result the appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs.
1) _______________________________ PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________ MEMBER * pnr Dt. 29.
07. 2010.
UP LOAD O.K.