State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Branch Manager vs Umesh on 1 February, 2024
1 Appeal No.1343/2019
Date of Filing : 19.09.2019
Date of Disposal : 01.02.2024
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 1st DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024
PRESENT
Mr. K.B.SANGANNANAVAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mrs. M.DIVYASHREE : LADY MEMBER
APPEAL NO.1343/2019
The Branch Manager
Central Bank of India,
Sirwar Post, Manvi Tq.,
Raichur Dist. ..Appellant/s
(By Adv.Sri.Eashwar Prasad)
Vs
Umesh
S/o Prabhu,
Aged about 33 Years,
R/at Sirwar Post,
Manvi Tq.,
Raichur Dist. ..Respondent/s
ORDER
BY Mr.K.B.SANGANNANAVAR : Pri.Dist & Session Judge (R) - JUDICIAL MEMBER.
1. This is an appeal filed U/s.15 of CPA 1986 by OP/Appellant aggrieved by the order dtd.20.08.2019 passed in CC/62/2018 on the file of Raichuru District Commission. (Parties to this 2 Appeal No.1343/2019 appeal will be referred to as their rank assigned to them by the Forum below).
2. The Commission examined the grounds of appeal, impugned order, appeal papers and heard the learned counsel on record and now, to examine, whether the impugned order passed by the Forum below in CC/62/2018 dtd.20.08.2019 call for interference of this Commission ?
3. The brief facts of the case of the Complainant would be, father of complainant by name Prabhu S/o Parvata reddy and he availed bank loan from OP Bank, for development of their lands. They also availed crop loan. They have availed loan of Rs.5,30,000/- and Rs.1,20,000/- respectively from the OP bank. The loan was on mortgage of their lands bearing sy.no.68/7 measuring 9 acres 37 guntas, sy.no.69/7/A measuring 3 acres 6 guntas, sy.no.68/A measuring 4 acres 14 guntas situated at Jabalpur village, Manvi taluk, Raichur district. This mortgaged deed was registered in the Office of Sub-Registrar at Manvi on 11.11.2003. It was the case of Complainant have paid entire loan amount along with interest and they have discharged loan amount and as a result OP Bank executed Re-conveyance Deed of Mortgage on 19.06.2010 and 3 Appeal No.1343/2019 even after redemption of mortgage deed, OP bank failed to issue No Due Certificate (NDC) and failed to return documents kept in their custody on one or the other pretext. When he approached the OP Bank in the month of January 2016, informed we are still due to the tune of Rs.90,000/-, which according to the Complainant amounts to unfair trade practice, since entire loan was discharged on 23.12.2009 and OP had executed Reconveyance Deed of Mortgage on 19.06.2010.
4. The complainant had raised consumer complaint before the Forum below alleging deficiency of service. The OP Bank had contested the complaint, contending firstly that complaint filed after lapse of 6 years 87 days of the alleged deficiency of service could not be admit in view of S.24A of CPA 1986 and secondly as the Complainant is still due certain amount to OP Bank, question of issue of NDC and return of documents does not arise at all. In other words denied the allegations as to rendering any deficiency in service. Thirdly the Complainant has no cause of action to raise consumer complaint before the Forum.
5. In view of rival contentions of the parties to the case, Forum below held an enquiry by receiving affidavit evidence and 4 Appeal No.1343/2019 documents from parties to the complaint case, held Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed and directed OP to issue NDC in respect of 2 loan accounts of the Complainant and to return the original documents submitted by the Complainant at the time of execution of Mortgage deed within one month without insisting further payment towards the alleged loan dues and directed to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation along with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of complaint till realisation. It is this order being assailed in this appeal contending that the Forum below failed to appreciate the materials on record, since entertained a time barred complaint contrary to the provisions of Sec.24A of CPA 1986. The Forum below failed to appreciate that the loan was availed by the Complainant and his father and both are have jointly mortgaged the properties, yet the Complainant alone has filed the complaint which is also bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and the impugned order is liable to be set aside as Forum below committed grave error in directing OP to return documents without insisting Complainant to pay alleged loan dues and to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation along with interest at 8% p.a. 5 Appeal No.1343/2019
6. It is not in dispute that Mr.Umesh S/o Prabhu and his father Mr.Prabhu availed bank loan from OP for development of lands and for the purpose to grow crops in their land amounting to Rs.5,30,000/- and Rs.1,20,000/- respectively. It is not in dispute that loan availed by the Complainant and his father for development of their lands was a mortgaged loan. It is found from the said deed of mortgage dated 11.11.2003, the lands bearing sy.no.68/7, 69/7/A and 68/A belonging to complainant and his father were been mortgaged in favour of OP. The Complainant in his complaint has stated after availing loan from OP, entire loan amount with interest was paid, thereby discharged the loan on 23.12.2009 and to that effect OP had executed the Re-conveyance Deed of Mortgage in favour of Complainant on 19.06.2010. In other words mortgage loan availed came to be redeemed and their end the matter.
7. It is not that, loan amount of Rs.5,30,000/- availed for development of lands was alone discharged and it also not that as on 23.12.2009 mortgage loan and crop loan were not been discharged by the Complainant and his father. If either of the loans were not discharged, question of execution of deed of Redemption of Mortgage on 19.06.2010 does not arise at all. In 6 Appeal No.1343/2019 our view immediately after discharge of the loan the course of action from the side of OP would be return of original documents deposited at the time of avail of loan and to issue NDC.
8. The contention of OP that, complaint is barred by Sec.24A of CPA 1986, since filed after lapse of 6 years 87 days, but in our view facts remained, OP bank withheld not only the original documents deposited at the time of availing mortgage loan but failed to initiate any legal action against Complainant or his father for recovery of outstanding due if any either before execution of redemption deed or immediately after execution of the said deed which give rise to draw an inference they were discharged their loan dues and obtained the re-conveyance deed. It is true, OP as a banker can exercise right of lean on such documents, if they are due to any other loan amount outstanding to their account, but facts remain found from enquiry on 19.06.2010 itself executed Re-conveyance Deed of Mortgage or redeemed mortgage loan in favour of Complainant and his father suffice to hold, not issuing NDC and withholding documents amounts OP bank rendered deficiency in service. In such circumstances, complaint filed during 2016 could not be 7 Appeal No.1343/2019 said barred U/s.24A of CPA 1986 and to that effect Forum below has to be held right in recording finding that Complainant had sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the complaint could be acceptable.
9. It may be true Mr.Prabhu S/o Parvatha Reddy was not made a party in the complaint, but facts remain his son being one of loanee and the mortgager has raised complaint, which cannot be said bad for non-joinder of Mr.Prabhu, since we are deciding the complaint under CPA and not in a civil suit. In our view considering the relief sought by the Complainant against OP no prejudice would cause to any of the parties in not impleading Mr.Prabhu as one of the party either to hold enquiry or to record legal findings. In such view of the matter, contention of learned counsel for Appellant that complaint filed by Mr.Umesh without impleading his father Prabhu is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties is unaccepted. It has also come in the enquiry that Mr.Prabhu father of the Complainant died on 28.10.2016 and in view of his death, OP cannot contend that his LRs are also to be brought on record, since Complainant/Mr.Umesh as one of the mortgager is already on record as his LR can seek 8 Appeal No.1343/2019 legal reliefs to get redress his grievances summarily in so far as their loan account is concerned.
10. The Commission has benefit to look into Re-conveyance Deed of Mortgage, wherein could see not only the agricultural development loan of Rs.5,30,000/-, but also the crop loan of Rs.1,20,000/-, were discharged together with interest. In such circumstances, considering the date of execution of Redemption deed, OP bank has no option except to return the documents withheld by them which were deposited at the time of availing mortgage loan and to issue NDC in favour of mortgager, since they have shown such loan was discharged on 23.12.2009.
11. It is true, OP is one of the nationalised banks and the money held by said bank is public money. If Complainant/Mr.Umesh and his father Prabhu are still due, are to know, how much they have due as on the date of Redemption of mortgage on 19.06.2010. In such circumstances, when OP bank failed to place any materials on record to substantiate that Complainant and his father are still due certain amounts is nothing but rendered deficiency of services, as such, the Forum below has to be held right in allowing the complaint, however awarding Rs.30,000/- as compensation and litigation cost with interest at 9 Appeal No.1343/2019 8% p.a. has to be held on higher side is hereby reduced to Rs.15,000/- together with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of complaint till realisation. Accordingly, impugned order stands modified and disposed of the appeal.
12. The amount in deposit is directed to be transferred to the District Commission for needful.
13. Notify copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties.
Lady Member Judicial Member *NS*