MODALA RANGANAYAKULU Vs. CHIEF MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful complainant in C D 212/2006 before the District Forum, Prakasam District at Ongole filed this appeal challenging the order for dismissal of the complaint.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the complainant had taken loan from the opposite party and since it was not paid the opposite party filed suit and obtained decree in O. S. 8/81 and then filed EP 44/89 before the Senior Civil Judge, Markapur for recovery of Rs. One lakh. During the pendency of the execution proceedings, i.e., from 16.08.1991 to 03.06.1996. The complainant had paid Rs.54,000/- from time to time and EP was adjourned from time to time for payment of the balance. In the mean while, RBI issued guidelines for one time settlement. So the complainant had approached the opposite party and paid the remaining balance amount of Rs.23,000/- for filing F.S. memo. After payment of the entire amount, the complainant approached the opposite party for returning the title deeds which were given as security. The opposite party counsel, by name, Sri R. N. Sastry had received a sum of Rs.54,000/- but he had remitted only Rs.20,000/-. So, the opposite party failed to return the documents. The act or omission of the opposite party is attributed as deficiency in service.

(3.) The opposite party filed its version stating that the bank does not know that the complainant had paid any amount to their counsel Sri R. N. S. Sastry and there is no information by the complainant about the payment. As per the Bank records a sum of Rs.54,000/- as alleged was not paid in respect of the loan account. In case, the amount was paid, receipt would have been issued. The complainant would have and ought to have insisted Sri R. N.S. Sastry for passing the receipts when he had paid the amount. The Opposite party bank cannot be made responsible for it.