IN THE KODAGU DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM MADIKERI

SRI. C.V. MARGOOR,PRESIDENT

O R D E R

1. This complaint filed by Smt. C.N. Umagowri aged 57 years, daughter of Sri.C.S. Narayana, w/o. A.R. Shivaprasad, resident of Madikeri Town with  prayer to direct the opponent Chief Manager, State Bank of India, College Road, Madikeri to return the documents mentioned in the schedule, further direct

the opponent to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and hardshipsuffered by her due to deficiency in service and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of this proceedings.

2. It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant had obtained financial assistance from the opponent in the year 1981 by mortgaging her properties through registered document dated 10/07/2012. The husband of the complainant by name Sri.A.R. Shivaprasad was the guarantor for the said loan.  The opponent had initiated recovery proceedings against the complainant and guarantor before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, II Karnataka at Bangalore in original application No.1151/2015.  The said suit was decreed.

3. It is further alleged in the complaint that the opponent come out with a scheme for one time settlement (OTS) vide letter dated 14/09/2017. The complainant by agreeing to the scheme had discharged the entire loan with interest.  That on 03/04/2018 the complainant has requested the opponent to return the original deeds and other papers.  But the complainant received a letter from Bangalore Branch of State Bank of India dated 09/08/2018 instructing her to collect the title deeds. The complainant has never deposited the title deeds in Bangalore but she has deposited the same with their Madikeri Branch.  Therefore, the opponent is negligent and deficient in their service. It is the

bounden duty of the opponent to hand over the documents at Madikeri after the closure of loan.The complainant has under gone severe mental agony, hardship, insult, humiliation and distress.Hence this complaint.

4. The opponent after the service of notice put in appearance through its learned counsel and resisted the averments of complaint by filing written statement. The contention of opponent is that the complaint is based on unfounded and imaginary grounds and  no cause of action has arose in favour of the complainant to file this complaint. The  opponent has admitted the case of complainant that she had availed loan in the year 1981 by offering her husband as guarantor and later on has deposited title deeds by executing mortgage deed.  The opponent has not disputed filing a suit before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Karnataka at Bangalore and decree was passed its favour.

5. It is denied by the opponent that the complainant had cleared the entire loan amount with interest as per the order dated 29/05/2017 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal.  The complainant has paid only the book balance amount as per SBI one time settlement claim 2017.  All the documents of the complainant were with the Debts Recovery Tribunal and on 22/11/2016 even during the pendency of the case as per bank policy the matter was transferred to the “Stressed Assets Recovery Branch (SARB), State Bank of India, Bangalore”. Herein after referred as SARB.   Since 22/11/2016 the opponent had no

direct contact with the Debt Recovery Tribunal with regard to the matter relating to the Debt Recovery Case.It was the SARB which was handling each and every matter relating to the Debt Recovery Cases.The complainant is aware of the fact that documents pertaining to the loan transaction have been got transferred to and held by the SARB Bangalore. After closure of the loan account the opponent has approached the Assistant General Manager, SARB, SBI, Bangalore to do needful to get the original documents from the DRT, Bangalore.After receiving the original documents SARB, SBI Bangalore intimated the complainant to collect the same from them. The complainant instead of approaching SARB, SBI,Bangalore has unnecessarily approached this Forum to harass the opponent.On the amongst other grounds, the opponent prays to dismiss the complaint with exemplary cost.

6. The complainant filed her affidavit in lieu of evidence and got marked exhibits P1 to P3 documents.  On behalf of opponent one Mr. Dinesh s/o. Rajaram Pai, Chief Manager, SBI, College Road, Madikeri filed affidavit in lieu of evidence and got marked exhibits R1 to R4 documents.

7. We heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the complainant and opponent and reply of learned counsel for the complainant.  In addition to that the learned counsel for the opponent submitted written arguments.  On perusal of the complaint, version, affidavits and submission made by both the

learned counsel the points that would arise for determination are as under;

1. Whether the complainant proves that the act of opponent non returning of the original documents even after discharge of the loan amounts to deficiency in service.

2. Is complainant entitled to the relief

sought for ?

3. What order?

8. Our findings on the above points is as under;

• Point No.1:- In the Negative
• Point No.2:- In the Negative
• Point No.3:- As per final order for the below

R E A S O N S

9. In this case there is no dispute with regard to availment and discharge of loan by the complainant after passing decree by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore.  According to the beginning paragraph no.3 of the complaint, the complainant had availed financial assistance from the Bank in the year 1981.  When the complainant became chronic defaulter in repayment of the loan, the opponent has filed case before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore in O.A.No.1151/2015.  The complainant produced copy of the order sheet and opponent bank filed affidavit before the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Bangalore along with memo dated 02/02/2019.  The order sheet and affidavit evidence in O.A. No.1151/2015 (TA No. 386/2017)  on the file of DRT Bangalore indicates that SBI Madikeri Branch is applicant, the complainant herein and her husband shown as opponents.  It is submitted by complainant that after passing decree by the DRT Bangalore she accepted the offer made by the opponent bank in respect of one time settlement scheme.  Accordingly, the complainant had cleared the loan.

10. The learned counsel for the complainant contention is that the complainant had taken loan facility from the opponent bank situated at College Road, Madikeri as such it was the bounden duty of the Madikeri branch to return the mortgaged documents at Madikeri only.  On the contrary the learned counsel for the opponent urged that during the pendency of the DRT case as per bank policy the entire matter was transferred to SARB, Bangalore to look after the DRT case.  Exhibit R1 letter 02/02/2016 issued by the Regional Business Office situated at  Mangalore to the opponent SBI Madikeri Branch for NPA Management of the complainant and another migration AGL account out standings to SARB.  It is mentioned in exhibit R1 that the competent authority has approved migration of the AGL account to SARB for further follow up and intimation of hard recovery measures.  The learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that exhibit R1 not pertaining to the complainant. It is clearly mentioned in exhibit R1 the name of complainant as Smt. Umagowri C.N.  The learned counsel for the complainant has not produced any other document to show that in addition to the case

filed before DRT Bangalore the complainant had another loan transaction in the opponent bank and it has filed another DRT case.Exhibit R1 contained eight pages.Exhibit R1 contained detail particulars of the loan taken by the complainant and another, date of availment of loan, how much amount due to the bank etc.It is evident from exhibit R1 document that the NPA management of the complainant case was transferred to SARB during the pendency of O.A.No.1151/2015.Exhibit R3 is demand notice issued by DRT Bangalore on 09/04/2018 to recover a sum of Rs.91,02,534/- as per recovery certificate issued in O.S.No.1151/2015.It is wrongly mentioned transferred application no.389/2017 instead of 386/2017.But old application no.1151/2015 and the complainant and her husband’s name correctly mentioned in exhibit R3 document.Exhibits R1 to R4 are pertaining to the complainant loan transaction and recovery proceedings.These documents indicate that during the pendency of recovery proceedings before DRT Bangalore the entire supervision of the case was transferred from the opponent Madikeri Branch to SARB Bangalore.Therefore, there is no force in the contention of learned counsel for the complainant that SARB is no way concerned to DRT case pending before the Bangalore.Admittedly loan was sanctioned by opponent bank but in view of bank policy supervision of the case was entrusted to SARB Bangalore.

11. The complainant has not paid the entire loan with interest as alleged in the complaint however by

accepting the proposal made by the opponent bank i.e. one time settlement scheme have discharged the loan on 27/03/2018.After discharging loan the complainant has submitted exhibit P2 letter dated 03/02/2018 to the opponent bank with a request to return all her title deeds and other papers pertaining to mortgage.After submitting exhibit P2 letter dated 03/04/2018 the authorized officer and Chief Manager (SARB) Bangalore has executed deed of discharge in respect of mortgage property before the Sub Registrar, Madikeri.ExhibitP1 deed of discharge dated 12/04/2018 produced by the complainant itself indicates that this deed of discharge is executed on 12/04/2018 by the State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch (SARB) , J.C Road, Bangalore represented by its Manager, M.N. Ramadas in favour of Smt. Umagowri .C.N.It is evident from exhibit P1 itself that the opponent SBI Madikeri Branch has no control over the DRT litigation and documents since the deed of discharge is executed by Chief Manager, SARB, JC Road, Bangalore.

12. The learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued contrary to their own document exhibit P1 that the opponent bank has produced title deeds before DRT.  As already referred in the previous paragraph that vide exhibit R1 letter dated 02/02/2016 the supervision of DRT case was transferred to SARB Bangalore.  In pursuance of exhibit P2 letter submitted by the complainant on 03/04/2018  the opponent bank has intimated SARB, Bangalore to make arrangement for return of the

original documents to the complainant.The complainant produced exhibit P3 letter dated 09/08/2018 sent by SARB Bangalore by registered post to her stating that you have closed loan account on 27/03/2018 under SBI one time settlement manufacturing and Trade and Services 2017 -18.All the title deeds of your properties were filed with DRT Bangalore as evidence in O.A.No.1151/2015, the same could not be delivered to you immediately.We have now received back the title deeds from DRT.Under exhibit P3 SARB Branch, Bangalore requested the complainant to visit their branch to receive back the original title deeds which cannot be sent through post as it carries a risk of loss or damage in transit.

13. It is evident from exhibit P3 that SARB branch could not sent the title deeds through post as they afraid of risk of loss and damage to title deeds in transit.  There is no delay in getting back title deeds from DRT since the complainant had discharged the loan under SBI one time settlement scheme on 27/03/2018.  After discharging loan vide exhibit P2 letter dated 03/04/2018 the complainant submitted a letter to the opponent bank for return of the title deeds.  After submitting exhibit P2 letter the SARB Branch, Bangalore has executed exhibit P1 the deed of discharge on 12/04/2018.  Within four months from the date of exhibit P1 deed of discharge SARB Branch, Bangalore by filing an application before DRT, Bangalore has taken back all the documents produced as evidence in O.A.No.1151/2015 and sent exhibit P3 intimation dated 09/08/2018 to receive

back the document by visiting their branch at Bangalore as there is a risk of loss or damage in transit if documents were sent through post.If the complainant was unable or could not travel to Bangalore she would have written a letter to SARB Bangalore and marking copy to the opponent branch, Madikeri to send the documents to Madikeri branch by assigning valid reason.

14. The complainant without giving reply to exhibit P3 letter dated 09/08/2018 or requesting to send the documents to the opponent branch at Madikeri has filed this complaint contending that the opponent is negligent and is deficient in service.  As per exhibit R1 supervision and control of the DRT case from  02/02/2016 and exhibit P1 deed of discharge the opponent SBI, Madikeri Branch had no control over the title deeds deposited by the complainant.  The complainant was aware of the proceedings conducted by SARB before DRT and the execution of exhibit P1 deed of discharge by SARB.  The complainant after receipt of exhibit P3 letter dated 09/08/2018 by the SARB Branch Bangalore to receive back the title deeds instead of requesting to send the documents to Madikeri Branch has filed this complaint within twenty days.  There is no deficiency on the part of opponent since it has no control over the title deeds and DRT case since 02/02/2016. 

15. The complainant has not placed any material to show that she has under gone severe mental agony, hardship, humilation and distress.  There is no much

time gap from the date of discharge of loan and exhibit P3 letter dated 09/08/2018 sent by the SARB Branch, Bangalore to receive back the title deeds.As already observed that after submitting exhibit P2 application dated 03/04/2018 by the complainant to the opponent bank, it has forwarded to the SARB Branch and there after it has moved an application to DRT to return back the documents produced as evidence in O.A.No.1151/2015.Immediately after returning back the title deeds the SARB Bangalore sent exhibit P3 intimation dated 09/08/2018.Therefore, there is no question of suffering mental agony, humilation etc. as the opponent has not harassed the complainant for return of title deeds since firstly it has no control over the title deeds which were produced before DRT Bangalore.Secondly, immediately after discharge of the loan SARB has taken steps for taking back the documents produced in DRT and thereafter sent exhibit P3 intimation to the complainant on 09/08/2018.After receiving notice in this case the learned counsel for the opponent produced the documents along with version on 03/11/2018.On the next hearing date the learned counsel for the complainant have received the title deeds along with other papers submitted to the bank while taking loan.In view of the above discussion the complainant is not entitled for compensation since there is no deficiency in service on the part of opponent.Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following;

O R D E R

1. The complaint filed by Smt. C.N. Umagowri w/o. Sri. A.R. Shivaprasad is hereby dismissed without cost.
2. Furnish copy of the order to the complainant and opposite party at free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this 23^rdday of FEBRUARY, 2019)

                                                    (C.V. MARGOOR)

                                                          PRESIDENT 

                                                  (M.C. DEVAKUMAR)

                                                           MEMBER