Judgment:
Oral Order (As per Sri R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Honble Member)
1. The opposite parties are the appellants.
2. The brief facts as seen in the complaint are that the complainant is an agriculturist and a member of opposite party no.1 society had taken a long term loan of `21,500/- vide loan A/c No.3036 96/Lt dated 29.11.1996 from the opposite party no.2 through the opposite party no.2 society by depositing title deeds towards security of the loan. The complainant has paid five isntalments and the last fifth instalment of `7923/- including interest was paid on 12.9.2001. The complainant in order to file nominations for the post of Director of the society approached the opposite party no.1 for return of the title deeds. The Secretary of the society postponed the same from time to time for several times. The complainant addressed letters dated 20.8.2003 and 25.7.2005 to the opposite party no.1 but the opposite party no.1 did not give any reply. The opposite party no.2 did not take proper steps to return the sale deeds to the complainant. Non-return of the sale deeds even after payment of the entire loan amount is deficiency in service.
3. The opposite party no.1 resisted the case and while admitting receipt of loan amount of `21,000/- by the complainant contended that the complainant failed to discharge the long term loan. As per rules of the society, the complainant mortgaged landed property and deposited the concerned title deeds with the opposite party no.1 society. The documents will be returned after the debt is fully discharged. No due certificate will be issued to the party till complete discharge of the loan by him. The receipt dated 12.9.2001 said to have been issued by the opposite partyno.1 is not a receipt issued by it.
4. The opposite party no.2 filed counter contending that the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite partyno.2. The complainant borrowed long term loan and short term loan from the opposite partyno.12 society. The opposite partyno.1 takes title deeds of the borrower and deposits with the bank and takes money. To that extent only, the bank has linked with the loan. After repayment of the loan amount by the society, the bank will deliver the connected title deeds to the society only. The bank is not a necessary party.
5. The complainant filed his affidavit and documents Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of the opposite party no.1, Thota Krishna Rao, Secretary filed his affidavit and Varre Brahmaneswara Rao, Branch Manager, of the opposite party no.2 filed his affidavit and documents Exs.B1 to B5.
6. The District forum allowed the complaint directing the opposite parties no.1 and 2 to return the two original title deeds of the complainant and pay compensation of `5,000/- and costs of `1,000/-.
7. Aggrieved by the order the opposite parties filed appeal on the grounds that the complainant did not pay the amount due to the society under the loan amount and that the complainant failed to furnish the details of the payment that he made to the opposite party no.1 for discharge of the loan amount.
8. The point for consideration is whether the opposite parties are liable to return the title deeds to the complainant?
9. The complainant is member of the opposite party no.1 society. The opposite party no.2 is the bank and Head Office of the opposite party no.1 society. The opposite party no.2 bank granted loan to the complainant on deposit of title deeds of the complainant by the opposite party no.1 society. His loan A/c No.3036 96T/LP1 of `21,500 and the loan was granted on 29.11.1996. the complainant has stated that he had paid the entire instalments which include the last 5th instalment of `7923/- inclusive of interest on 12.9.2001 and to the effect the secretary of the opposite party no.1 society had issued receipt acknowledging the amount from the complainant. The complainant for the purpose of filing nominations in the elections required no due certificate from the opposite party no.1 society. He has stated that he requested the opposite party no.1 society to return the documents. The complainant had issued letters dated 20.8.2003 and 25.7.2005 for which the opposite party no.1 society had not given any reply.
10. The opposite party no.1 admitted the membership of the complainant and his seeking loan of `21,000/- on 29.11.1996 for the purpose of maintaining sheep. It is the contention of the opposite party no.1 society that the complainant had not paid the entire loan amount and the receipt dated 12.9.2001 was not issued by the opposite party no.1 society. The opposite party no.2 denied any privity of contract to the complainant except to the extent of the loan amount. Therefore, the moot question that is to be answered is whether the complainant had paid the entire instalments to the opposite party no.2.
11. The parties are at dispute in regard to the amount of `7923/-. The payment of amount `7923/- is evidenced by receipt Ex.A1 which the opposite party no.2 denies on the premise that the amount mentioned in Ex.A1 is not reflected in its day book, Ex.B3. The receipt was issued by the Secretary of the opposite party no.1 society. The opposite party no.2 bank except denying the payment of the amount by the complainant under Ex.A1, has not taken any steps to prove that it was fabricated nor had it denied the issuing of it by the Secretary of the opposite party no.1 society. The opposite party no.2 bank cannot contend that the amount of `7923/- paid by the complainant under Ex.A1 had received by the Secretary of the opposite party no.1 society, it is not liable to return the documents to the complainant.
12. It is not the case of the opposite party no.2 bank that the documents, title deeds mortgaged by the opposite party no.1 society are lost or could not be found. The only parameter required for the opposite party no.2 bank to return the documents to the complainant is the repayment of the loan amount by the complainant which is established by the complainant. Having received the amount either directly or through the opposite party no.1 society, the opposite partyno.2 bank has the obligation to return the title deeds to the complainant. There was no reply to the letters dated 20.8.2003, 25.7.2005 and the notice dated 30.8.2006. Therefore, at any stretch of imagination it cannot be said that the complainant is not entitled to return of the documents. The appeal is devoid of any merits and is liable to be dismissed. The District Forum has elaborately dealt with various facts pointing out the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.1 society and the opposite partyno.2 bank. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
13. In the result the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum. The costs of the appeal is quantified at Rs.2,000/-.