NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

CIRCUIT BENCH AT BANGALORE, KARNATAKA

 

REVISION PETITION No. 255 of 2001

(From the Order dated 16.06.2000 in Appeal No. 657 of 1998 of the State Commission, Bangalore, Karnataka).

 

Thukaram Anantha Shet                                                Appellant

 

Vs

 

The Manager                                                                Respondent

Karnataka Bank Ltd.                                       

 

BEFORE :

 

            HON’BLE.MR.JUSTICE M.B.SHAH, PRESIDENT

            HON’BLE DR. P.D.SHENOY, MEMBER

 

For the Appellant                                  : Shri R V Jayaprakash, Advocate

 

For the Respondent                              : Shri V S Shastri, Advocate

 

Dated the 10th January 2006.

 

ORDER

 

 

           

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. This appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 16.06.2000 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Appeal No. 657 of 1998. The State Commission, vide its order, has allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the District Forum, Shimoga, in Complaint No. 72 of 1997, directing the Respondent Bank to return the original title deeds, sale certificates issued by the Municipality, Sagar, in respect of the open site and the other original deeds, if any, which were furnished by way of security by the guarantor (Petitioner) for providing an over draft facility to one M/s. Hegde Traders.

 

                        The appeal was allowed on the grounds  that : (i)  civil proceedings were pending between the parties;  and (ii) the dispute between the Complainant and the Bank was not a consumer dispute, which can be covered by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

                        In our view, the State Commission has erroneously arrived at the conclusion that the dispute would not fall within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act.  Under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, banking services are covered by an inclusive definition.  Therefore, in the case where the over draft facility / loan is given to a person against the pledging of the title deeds, and if the loan is returned, the title deeds are required to be returned by the bank to the pledgee.  Returning of the pledged documents shall be part of the services to be rendered by the bank. In the present case, admittedly,  the Petitioner was a guarantor who pledged the documents, as stated above, with the bank to enable M/s. Hegde Traders to get the over draft facility. Undisputedly,  Mr. M.Vasudeva Maiya, who was the Manager of the Bank at the time of granting the loan, was required to pay the said amount, as a disciplinary action was taken by the bank against him.  Further, once the loan amount is paid, the bank would not have any authority to retain the title deeds/documents.  If the same are not returned, the Petitioner is entitled to approach the Consumer Forum, as non-return of the pledged documents after repayment of loan would amount to deficiency in service by the bank.  Therefore, the view taken by the State Commission on this point is erroneous.

 

                        Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Kesavanchari Gopalakrishnan Achari Vs. Velu Achari Pappukutty Achari & Ors. AIR 1996 SC 1075,  wherein the Court has held in paragraph 26 that a stranger who had volunteered to pay off the mortgage debt and obtained a deed of release from the concerned mortgagee, does neither acquire a right of a subrogee nor of the mortgagee.  We are bound by the law laid down in the aforesaid decision.

 

                        However, in the present case, it is an admitted fact that the Petitioner had approached the Civil Court by filing a Suit No. 97 of 1999 for permanent injunction against the Respondent Bank and the suit is dismissed by the Civil Court, may be on the technical ground, against which an appeal is pending before the District Court. Similarly, Mr.Maiya, the Manager of the Bank, who was required to pay the loan amount, had also filed Original Suit No. 26 of 2000 before the Principal Civil Court for the reliefs mentioned therein. One of the reliefs sought for in the Original Suit is handing over of the documents to him. That suit was also dismissed by the Civil Court.  Against that decree, appeal is filed by Mr.Maiya before the District Court.

                        Considering the pendency of the appeals before the Appellate Court, in our view, we have to pass appropriate reasonable order which may not come  in conflict with the orders which may be passed in appeals.

                        Therefore, in our view, it would be just and reasonable to pass the following order:

                        The Bank is directed to deliver the documents to the Complainant, which were pledged by the Complainant to the Bank, as the loan taken on the over draft facility is fully paid to the satisfaction of the bank.  The Bank shall comply with this order of delivering the pledged title deeds, as soon as the civil proceedings are finalized. Ordered accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.

………………………………….J.

(M.B.SHAH)

PRESIDENT

 

…………………………………...

(P.D.SHENOY)

MEMBER