Tirupati Venugopal,

S/o. T. Ranganadha Mudali,

Hindu, aged 56 years, Cultivation,

Vengalathur village and post,

Pichatur Mandal,

Chittoor District. … Complainant


vs



1. Sri Venkateswara Grameena Bank,

By its Manager,

Vengalathur village and Post,

Pichatur Mandal,

Chittoor Disrict.



2. Sapthagiri Grameena Bank,

Head Office,

By its Manager,

Post Box No.17, Naidu Buildings,

Chittoor – 517 001. … Opposite parties.




ORDER




This complaint is filed under Sections-12 and 14 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, to pass an order directing the opposite parties to return the original sale deed dt:29.05.1999, patta pass book and title deed, to pay Rs.60,000/- towards compensation for loss of crop for want of loan facility and to pay Rs.1,000/- towards costs of the litigation to the complainant.



2. The averments of the complaint in brief are :- The complainant is a small farmer having 3 acres 68 cents of cultivable land situated in the village accounts of Vengalathur as per the entries in the pass book No.1564 issued by the Revenue authorities on 04.12.1989. The complainant was cultivating the lands by availing agricultural loans from the banks. On 31.05.1999 the complainant availed crop loan of Rs.40,000/- from opposite party No.1 under loan account No.124/1999 by mortgaging the documents on 29.05.2009. The documents deposited with the bank were registered sale deed 923/96 dt:21.08.1996, E.C. dt:24.05.1999, Valuation Certificate dt:22.05.1999 and pattadar pass book-cum-title deed No.24. The complainant discharged the loan amount by 15.06.2001. Since the complainant needed further loan on the same title deeds, he requested to grant loan facility of Rs.45,000/- and it was granted on 18.06.2001 by the then Branch Manager Dasaradha Reddy.


The complainant availed loan facility of Rs.40,000/- and loan file No.GKC 169/2001 was opened. The loan was re-scheduled during 2004. The complainant availed further credit loan of Rs.5,000/- on 20.08.2004 on production of 10(1) account adangal copy and original sale deed dt:25.04.2001. The said loan of Rs.5,000/- was totally waived on 18.06.2001 by the A.P.Government under Debt Waiver Scheme. With regard to the 2nd loan of Rs.40,000/- a benefit of Rs.20,000/- was allowed under Debt Waiver scheme and the complainant paid the balance amount of Rs.23,923/- on 07.08.2008. The complainant demanded to return the original documents which were kept under first loan and later on continued as security for the second loan. But opposite party No.1 delivered only adangal copy and sale deed dt:25.04.2001 and denied the other documents.


The complainant obtained the extract of register of equitable mortgage from opposite party No.1 and submitted representation to opposite party No.2 on 04.09.2008. As there was no reply the complainant got issued legal notice to opposite parties 1 and 2 on 10.02.2009. It was replied on behalf of opposite parties stating that while discharging the first loan the original documents were delivered to the complainant. Since the complainant did not get back the pass book-cum-title deed along with the original sale deed dt:21.08.1996, he could not get any loan facility since 2008 from the banks for want of title deeds, thereby he was deprived of the loan facility and could not do any cultivation. The complainant lost crops at an estimated value of Rs.30,000/- per year. Hence the complaint.

3. The opposite party No.1 resisted the complaint. In the objections filed on behalf of opposite party No.1, while denying the material allegations made in the complaint, it is stated that the complainant availed crop loan of Rs.40,000/- on 31.05.1999 under loan account No.124/1999. The complainant executed relevant documents in favour of opposite party No.1 and offered his property as security for the loan and created an equitable mortgage by way of deposit of title deeds in favour of S.V.Grameena Bank, Sathyavedu, in as much as opposite party No.1 branch was not empowered to take the equitable mortgage as per the notification of the Government. In view of the powers entrusted in favour of Sathyavedu branch, the equitable mortgage has to be created at Sathyavedu only. Subsequently, the complainant discharged the loan amount and got return of the title deeds. Thus all the original title deeds were returned to the complainant at the time of discharging the loan.


The complainant once again approached the opposite party No.1 and got sanction of fresh credit loan of Rs.45,000/- on 18.06.2001, but he availed only Rs.40,000/- under account No.GKC 169/2001. The said loan was sanctioned only basing on 10(1) account, agreement of hypothecation and extension on future crops. Thus, there is no question of obtaining title deeds in as much as the loan was sanctioned basing on hypothecation of existing and future crops. Except 10(1) no other document was produced by the complainant. The bank also did not demand for deposit of any title deeds.


Though the complainant sought for waiver, the loan could not be waived as per the rules and regulations, as the loan was obtained for the property of more than 5 acres shown in the 10(1) account and hypothecation agreement for existing and future crops. For the property of more than 5 acres, the waiver of loan was applicable up to a limit of Rs.20,000/-. Thus, there was only waiver of Rs.20,000/- and the complainant paid the remaining amount. During the pendancy of the above loan, the complainant availed crop loan of Rs.5,000/- by executing an agreement of hypothecation of existing and future crops dt:28.01.2004. As the opposite party No.1 insisted for a document as security for the said loan, the complainant produced registered sale deed dt:25.04.2001. The said loan was entirely waived in as much as the property was less than 5 acres. Thus, after waiver of the above said two loans, the complainant got return of the document i.e. sale deed dt:25.04.2001. The legal notice got issued by the complainant clearly shows that he got return of the pattadar pass book for which he filed the complaint. When the complainant received pattadar pass book there is no necessity for the bank to withhold the title deed and sale deed dt:21.08.1996.


For the legal notice got issued by the complainant, the opposite party No.1 gave reply on 10.02.2009. As the entire loan was not waived under the last two accounts, the complainant aggrieved by the same came up with the complaint. The complainant asked opposite party No.1 to make maximum efforts to get the said two loans waived. When the opposite party No.1 expressed his inability informing that he has to abide the rules and regulations, the complainant filed the present complaint in order to harass him. The documents sought for by the complainant were returned by opposite party No.1 and they are in the custody of the complainant. As such there is no question of deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1. The complainant is not entitled to any relief. The complaint is liable to be dismissed in limine.

4. The opposite party No.2 remained exaprte.

5. In support of the averments made in the complaint, the complainant filed his affidavit and got marked as Exs. A1 to A9. Ex.A1 is xerox copy of savings pass book bearing No.1564 issued by the opposite party No.1 in the name of the complainant on 04.12.1989. Ex.A2 is xerox copy of extract of register of equitable mortgages showing the description of property and details of documents deposited by the complainant on 29.05.1999. Ex.A3 is xerox copy of pass book showing the entries for the period from 15.06.2001 to 08.06.2002.


Ex.A4 is xerox copy of pass book issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Pichatur, in the name of the complainant on 27.02.1995. Ex.A5 is xerox copy of complaint dt:04.09.2008 sent by the complainant to the opposite party No.2. Ex.A6 is office copy of legal notice dt:24.01.2009 got issued by the complainant to the opposite parties. Ex.A7 is reply notice dt:10.02.2009 got issued by the opposite parties to the advocate for complainant. Ex.A8 is xerox copy of household card issued to the complainant by Deputy Mandal Revenue Officer, Pichatur. Ex.A9 is counter foil of pay-in-slip showing deposit of Rs.23,923/- under loan account No.169/01 by the complainant on 07.08.2008.

6. In support of the version taken in the objections, the opposite party No.1 filed his affidavit and got marked Exs. B1 to B8. Ex.B1 is true copy of ledger extract of account No.124-99 of complainant issued by opposite party No.1. Ex.B2 is demand promissory note dt:18.06.2001 for Rs.45,000/- executed by the complainant in favour of opposite party No.1. Ex.B3 is Agreement of Hypothecation of Existing and Future Crops executed by the complainant in favour of opposite party No.1 on 18.06.2001. Ex.B4 is Letter of Guarantee dt:18.06.2001 executed by the guarantor of complainant in favour of opposite party No.1. Ex.B5 is 10(1) account issued by V.A.O., Pichatur, in the name of the complainant. Ex.B6 is demand promissory note dt:28.01.2004 for Rs.5,000/- executed by the complainant in favour of opposite party No.1. Ex.B7 is Agreement of Hypothecation of Existing and Future Crops executed by the complainant in favour of opposite party No.1 on 28.10.2004. Ex.B8 is Agreement for Rescheduling of loans dt:28.10.2004 executed by the complainant in favour of opposite party No.1.

7. On behalf of the complainant and opposite party No.1 written arguments were filed and we have heard the oral arguments of counsel of both sides.

8. On the basis of pleadings of both sides, the points that arise for determination are:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties towards the complainant?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed? If so, to what extent?

3. To what result?

9. Point No.1:- The facts which are not in dispute are:- The complainant availed crop loan of Rs.40,000/- on 31.05.1999 under loan account No.124/99 by offering his property as security for the loan. The complainant created equitable mortgage by way of deposit of title deeds i.e. registered sale deed dt:21.08.1996, E.C. dt:24.05.1999, Valuation Certificate dt:22.05.1999, pattadar pass book and title deed in favour of Sri Venkateswara Grameena Bank, Sathyavedu Branch, who was empowered to take the equitable mortgage as per the notification of the Government as seen from Ex.A2. The complainant discharged the loan by 15.06.2001. On 18.06.2001 the complainant applied for fresh crop loan of Rs.45,000/-. Though the loan was sanctioned for Rs.45,000/-, the complainant availed only Rs.40,000/- under loan account No.GKC 169/2001. The complainant at the time of availing 2nd loan executed Ex.B2 D.P.Note and Ex.B3 Agreement of Hypothecation of Existing and Future Crops and submitted Ex.B5 10(1) account.


The complainant’s guarantor executed Ex.B4 letter of guarantee. The said loan was rescheduled on 28.10.2004 when the complainant executed Ex.B8 Agreement for Rescheduling of Loans. The said loan up to a limit of Rs.20,000/- was waived under Debt Relief Scheme and the complainant paid the balance amount of Rs.23,923/- under Ex.A9 on 07.08.2008. Even during the pendancy of the 2nd loan, the complainant applied for grant of another sum of Rs.5,000/- towards crop loan and the same was granted. At the time of taking 3rd loan of Rs.5,000/- the complainant executed Ex.B6 D.P.Note and Ex.B7 Agreement of Hypothecation of Existing and Future Crops.


When the opposite party No.1 insisted for security for the said loan of Rs.5,000/-, the complainant deposited title deed i.e. sale deed dt:25.04.2001. The said loan of Rs.5,000/- was entirely waived and the sale deed dt:25.04.2001 was returned to the complainant. The complainant on 04.09.2008 submitted the original of Ex.A5 complaint to opposite party No.2 alleging that the documents of title deposited by him at the time of availing 1st loan were not returned to him. The complainant then got issued Ex.A6 legal notice calling upon the opposite parties to return the documents. The opposite parties got issued Ex.A7 reply notice stating that the documents deposited by the complainant at the time of 1st loan were returned to him after he discharged the loan on 15.06.2001 and the 2nd loan was sanctioned basing on Demand Promissory Note, Agreement of Hypothecation of Existing and Future Crops, 10(1) account and Letter of Guarantee. The complainant then filed the complaint on 26.03.2009.

10. The case of the complainant as stated in the complaint is that since he needed further loan amount on the same title deeds, he requested to grant loan facility of Rs.45,000/- and the opposite party No.1 granted the loan to a limit of Rs.45,000/- on 18.06.2001. On the other hand, the case of the opposite party No.1 is that after discharge of the 1st loan taken by the complainant the documents were returned to the complainant and that the 2nd loan was sanctioned on the basis of 10(1) account and execution of D.P.Note, Agreement of Hypothecation of Existing and Future Crops by the complainant and Letter of Guarantee by the complainant’s guarantor. Exs. B2 to B5 support the version of the opposite party No.1. The plea of the complainant that the 2nd loan was granted by opposite party No.1 on the same title deeds, which he deposited at the time of taking 1st loan cannot be believed.


If really, the opposite party No.1 was having the title deeds, which the complainant deposited at the time of taking 1st loan, they would not have insisted for security for the 3rd loan of Rs.5,000/- and the complainant would not have deposited sale deed dt:25.04.2001. Admittedly, when the 3rd loan was waived the sale deed dt:25.04.2001 was returned to the complainant. As already stated at the time of availing 1st loan the complainant deposited registered sale deed dt:21.08.1996, E.C. dt:24.05.1999, Valuation Certificate dt:22.05.1999, Pattadar pass book and title deed as mentioned in Ex.A2 Register of Equitable Mortgages. In Ex.A6 legal notice got issued by the complainant it is stated that the opposite party No.1 returned only pattadar pass book and sale deed dt:25.04.2001. During the course of arguments the counsel for opposite party No.1 drew the attention of this Forum to the pattadar pass book which was in the custody of the complainant.


The pattadar pass book which was in the custody of the complainant was placed before this Forum for perusal. As submitted by the counsel for opposite party No.1 when one document deposited on 29.05.1999 as mentioned in Ex.A2 was returned by opposite party No.1, it is impossible to believe that the opposite party No.1 did not return the other two documents. More than seven years after the discharge of the 1st loan, the complainant sent Ex.A5 complaint to opposite party No.2 alleging that opposite party No.1 did not return two documents i.e., sale deed dt:21.08.1996 and title deed issued by the Revenue Authorities. The complainant failed to establish that the opposite parties 1 and 2 committed deficiency in service in not returning the two documents deposited by him in the year 1999.

11. For the above reasons, we find that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties towards the complainant. This point is accordingly answered against the complainant.

12. Point No.2:- In view of our finding on point No.1, the complainant is not entitled to any relief. This point is accordingly answered.

13. Point No.3:- In the result, the complaint is dismissed, but without costs.