BEFORE THE BANGALORE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE -  27.

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.207/2022

DATED ON THIS THE 17^th  FEBRUARY-2023

Present:        1) Sri. B.Narayanappa

M.A., LL.B., - PRESIDENT  

                     2) Smt. Sharavathi. S.M,

                                               BA., LLB., MEMBER

Judgment Delivered by Sri B.NARAYANAPPA,

                                                               PRESIDENT

That, one Mr. P. Marimuthu availed loan of Rs.20,00,000/- from OP under loan A/c No.20150050 by depositing title deeds dated 18.04.2015 of his property bearing Site No.06, V.P. Khata No.1646/243/3, Sy.No.57/1 and 57/2, Bommanahalli Ward No.175, situated at Bommanahalli village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore.The said P. Marimuthu had purchased the said property measuring East-West 40 feet and North-South 43 feet from one P. Shivakumar and sold a portion of property measuring East-West 40 feet North-South 18 feet to one A. Shankar Reddy under registered sale deed dated 22.01.2015.The said A. Shankar Reddy sold the same to one Mrs. Shashikala under registered sale deed.Subsequently, the said P.Marimuthu availed a loan of Rs.20,00,000/- from the OP.The complainant acquired the remaining extent of the said property measuring East-West 40 feet North-South 23 feet from P. Marimuthu under exchange deed dated 17.02.2017 and the said P. Marimuthu has also entered into MOU with the complainant dated 17.03.2017 and also executed GPA in favour of the complainant.In the MOU a condition was imposed stating that, the complainant has to repay the entire loan of Rs.20,00,000/- to OP and to redeem the mortgage from the OP Bank.The complainant approached the OP for closing the loan and to handover the documents of the property in his favour but, the OP reluctant to redeem the mortgage in favour of the complainant.Hence, legal notice was caused to OP on 03.05.2022 but, there was no response from the OP.Therefore it is alleged that, there is a deficiency in service on the part of OP.Hence, this complaint is filed.

5. our consideration are as under:

1. Whether the complainant proves that the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and thereby he is entitled to the reliefs as sought for?

2.  What order?

      Point No.1 :-  In the negative.

      Point No.2 :- As per final order

                          for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

7.         Point No.1:- It is the contention of the complainant that, one P. Marimuthu has availed a loan of Rs.20,00,000/- from OP Bank by depositing title deeds and by executing mortgage deed in favour of the OP in respect of property bearing Site No.06, V.P. Khata No.1646/243/3, Sy.No.57/1 and 57/2, Bommanahalli Ward No.175, Khata No.1646/243/3, property No.1645/243/3/06 situated at Bommanahalli village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore and it is further contention of the complainant that, the said P. Marimuthu had purchased the said property measuring East-West 40 feet and North-South 43 feet under sale deed dated 20.12.2014 and sold a portion of the said property measuring East-West 40 feet and North-South 18 feet in favour of one A. Shankar Reddy under registered sale deed dated 22.01.2015 who in turn sold the same in favour of Mrs. Shashikala.  Thereafter, the said P. Marimuthu had availed loan of Rs.20,00,000/- from OP Bank and it is further specific contention of the complainant that, he had acquired remaining portion of the said property measuring East-West 40 feet and North-South 23 feet from P. Marimuthu under exchange deed dated 17.02.2017 and the said P. Marimuthu had also entered into MOU with complainant and also executed GPA in favour of the complainant and a condition was imposed in the MOU stating that, the complainant shall clear the loan amount of Rs.20,00,000/- with OP and get the mortgage redeemed from the OP and to get the documents returned in his name.  The complainant approached the OP Bank for closure of the loan and to redeem the mortgage deed and to get the documents returned in his name but, the OP refused to redeem the mortgage deed and to close the loan account since, the loan account is in the name of P. Marimuthu not in the name of complainant and instructed the complainant to accompany the said P. Marimuthu to close the loan account and to redeem the mortgage and to get the documents returned in his favour but, complainant failed to accompany the said P. Marimuthu to OP Bank. Therefore, it is the specific contention of the OP that, since the complainant is not a loan account holder and one P. Marimuthu is the loan account holder, the loan cannot be closed in the absence of P. Marimuthu unless the complainant accompany the said P. Marimuthu.  It is the specific contention of the OP that, they are ready to close the loan account of P. Marimuthu if the complainant accompany the P. Marimuthy to OP Bank and subject to clearance of the loan, the OP Bank redeem the mortgage and return the documents to said P. Marimuthu only.  The complainant without accompanied the P. Marimuthu to OP Bank to close the loan account standing in the name of P. Marimuthu and to redeem the mortgage has alleged deficiency in service on the part of OP.  The complainant got marked documents Ex.P.1 to P-17, such as the loan sanction letter sanctioned by the OP to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/- in the name of P. Marimuthu, certified copy of the absolute sale deed, EC, absolute sale deed executed standing in the name of P. Marimuthu, EC, Khata, copy of the sale deed standing in the name of one Mrs. Shashikala and other documents in respect of the property which was standing in the name of P. Marimuthu who had availed loan from the OP Bank.  The OP also got marked documents as Ex.R-1 to R-12.  The application for loan, loan sanction letter, surety documents and the documents pertaining to the property which was standing in the name of P. Marimuthu and loan account statement. 

8. Therefore, we are of the considered view that, the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of OP.  Hence, we answer point No.1 in the Negative.

9. Point No.2:- For the aforesaid reasons, we proceed to pass the following

:: ORDER ::

1. The complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed.  No order as to costs.
2. Furnish the copy of order to both parties at free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by him, corrected by us and then pronounced in open Commission on this the 17^th February 2023)