Date of filing:  3-11-2016                                               Date of order : 04-8-2017

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::

KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT

PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT

                                                                            SMT. K. SIREESHA, LADY MEMBER                                     

Friday, 04^th day of August 2017

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 78 / 2016

1.  G.V. Ramana Reddy, S/o G. Sidda Reddy,

     Hindu, aged about 50 years, Business.

2.  G. Supriya, W/o G.V. Ramana Reddy, Hindu,

     aged about 40  years, Housewife.     

     Both are residing at D. No. 2/297-1, Balaji Nagar, Kadapa city,

     Sambapalli Mandal, Kadapa District,

     Presently residing at Regadiguntapalli,

     Door No. 14/40, Sambapalli Mandal, Kadapa District.             ….. Complainant.

Vs.

Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., Rep. by its

Branch Manager, Door No. 9/102, S.V.K. Complex,

Madras Road, Kadapa District.                                           ………Opposite party.

This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 21-7-2017 in the presence of Sri A. Raja Reddy, Advocate for Complainant and Sri M. Sudhakar Babjee, Advocate for Opposite parties and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

(Per Smt. K. Sireesha, Member),

1.                Complaint filed under section 12 of C.P. Act 1986.

2.                The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:- The first Complainant approached Respondent company for financial assistance by offering the properties owing by him and his wife i.e.  the 2^nd Complainant herein as collateral security to secure repayment of loan. Accordingly, the Complainants sanctioned loan of                       Rs. 40,00,000/- on 28-7-2011 under an agreement No. CUDP2TF07290002 in favour of the Complainants and thereafter 1^st Complainant borrower and the 2^nd Complainant as surety have jointly executed all the necessary documents as a proof of borrowal of an amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest.  The loan amount was repayable in 36 monthly installments starting by 15-8-2011.  The properties offered for security are the residential flats owning by the Complainants.   The first Complainant is the owner of the flat No. 513 in GVR towers at Kadapa town which was purchased by him on 3-2-2010 and also the owner of another flat No. 512 in GVR Towers at Kadapa.  Having purchased the same on the even date on 3-2-2010 vide document Nos. 703/2010 and 702/2010 respectively.  The 2^nd Complainant who is the owner of the flat bearing No. 402 having purchased the  same on 26-10-2009 through the registered document No. 4895/2009.   The Complainants offered these three items of residential flats jointly as collateral security for having borrowed the amount of                   Rs. 40,00,000/-.  The Complainant have discharged the entire loan amount on                  29-4-2014 and no amount is due according to them.  The Complainant No. 1 requested the Respondent Company to release the documents that were deposited with it at the time of availing of loan as they paid entire amount for which representation no reply was sent for which there was no reply.   A legal notice was sent on 23-9-2016 requesting the Respondent Company to return the registered sale deeds since they discharged the entire loan amount.  Having received notice reply was sent on                       6-10-2016 through its lawyear informing that as the Complainant did not discharge the loan amount it is not possible for the company to release the documents.  As the loan amount was pending against the Respondent for discharge.  The Respondent had not issued clearance letters also.   The failure to return of the registered sale deeds would amount to deficiency in service as per the consumer protection act.  The Complainants suffered mentally and financially.  Hence, the complaint in return of documents,   It is therefore, prayed that the Hon’ble forum may be pleased to direct the Respondent company (a) to return sale deeds document No. 702/2010, dt. 3-2-2010, the registered sale deed No. 703/2010, dt. 3-2-2010 and the registered sale deed dt. 29-10-2009 document No. 4865/2009 respectively handed over to the respondent company at the time of availing of loan, (b) to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony and suffering and (c) to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- towards the cost of the complaint in the interest of justice.

3.                Counter filed on behalf of the Respondent.  The complaint filed by the Complainants neither just nor maintainable either in law or on facts.  The Complainants are put to strict proof of all allegations made in the complaint which are not expressly and specifically admitted herein. The deposit of documents namely document No. 702/2010,  703/2010 and 4895/2009 are true and correct for grant of loan from the respondent.  The loan was discharged by the Complainants.  These petitioners also availed loan from Respondent vide loan agreement No. CUD P2 TF 09300012, dt. 22,8,2011 for Rs. 60,00,000/- as well as another agreement bearing No. CUD P2 TF 1203220001, dt. 20-3-2012 for Rs. 60,00,000/-.  These petitioners are defaulters for the above referred loans as well as the loan availed for the account No. CUD P2 TF 07290002 subsequently, these petitioners repay the loan dt. 28-7-2011, but they orally created lein for the loans pending against them covering the above referred sale deeds.  In view of default of the petitioners, this respondent referred the loan agreement before the arbitrator vide ARC No. 67/2015 and 74/2015 and after due hearing the sole arbitrator passed award against the complaints herein for Rs. 80,45,083/- in award No. 74/2015 and also for Rs. 57,07,009/-  vide award No. 67/2015.   The Respondent filed E.P. No. 88/2016 and No. 93/2016 before the Hon’ble Principal District Judge, Kadapa.  Taking advantage of creation of lein, the claimants now intended to evade the debts and expecting the attachment against the properties covered under the referred sale deeds, got filed this frivolous petition as if there is a deficiency of service.  Since, there is a liability of the Complainants more than one crore thirty lakhs in favour of this respondent and more over these documents kept with the company by the Complainants in order to as a lean.  Thus there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Respondent.  Therefore, prayed that the Hon’ble court may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.

4.                On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination. 

1. Whether the complainant is eligible for compensation as prayed by them or not?

                            ii.  Whether there is negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the Respondent or not?

        iii.    To what relief?

5.                On behalf of complainant Exs. A1 to A5 were marked.          

6.                Point Nos. I & II. As seen from counter of the Respondent, the petitioners had availed another two loans worth of                   Rs. 60,00,000/- each and they are defaulters of those loans and the loan agreement referred before arbitrator by the Respondent under ARC No. 67/2015 and 74/2015. There was an award passed against the Complainant for Rs. 80,45,083/-  in award No. 74/2015 and also for Rs. 57,07,009/- in 67/2015.   The Respondent filed E.P. No. 88/2016 and E.P. No. 93/2016 before  the Principal District Judge, Kadapa.   So the Respondent had not released the documents, As the Complainants are due of more than one crore thirty lakhs to the Respondent.  So the Respondent had not released the documents as there is lean agreement between the Respondent and Complainants.  In these circumstances there is no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the Respondent and at the same time the Complainants are not eligible for any compensation, any mental agony from the Respondent.

7.                Point No. III.  In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.

                   Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him,  corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 04^th day of August 2017.

MEMBER                                                                                              PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined.

For Complainant :        NIL                               For Opposite parties :            NIL

Exhibits marked for Complainant: -

Ex. A1         Office copy of the legal notice dt. 23-9-2016 sent by the Complainants to the Respondent

Ex. A2         Reply legal notice dt. 6-10-2016 sent by the respondent company to the Complainant.

Ex. A3         P/c of the registered sale deed dt. 3-2-2010 vide document No. 702/2010.

Ex. A4         P/c of the registered sale deed dt. 3-2-2010 vide document No. 703/2010.

Ex. A5         P/c of the registered sale deed dt. 29-10-2009 vide doc. No. 4895/2009.

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Opposite party: -              NIL 

MEMBER                                                                                        PRESIDENT                                  

Copy to :-

1. Sri A. Raja Reddy, Advocate for Complainant.
2. Sri M. Sudhakar Babjee, Advocate for Opposite party.

B.V.P