BANK OF BARODA Vs. RANJEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in these proceedings is to the order dated 17.05.2012 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Jaipur ( in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 937/2011. The appeal before the State Commission was also filed by the petitioner Bank of Baroda against the order dated 07.04.2011 passed by the District Consumer Forum Jaipur on an application for interim relief made on behalf of the respondent complainant under section 13(B) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( in short, 'the Act') in complaint case no. 860/2010. By that order, the District Forum had allowed the said application and directed the opposite party bank to return all the documents pertaining to plot No.85, Sonabari, Gopalpura, Byepass, Jaipur, to the complainant within 10 days from the date of presentation of indemnity bond by the complainant in favour of the opposite party by undertaking that in case the outstanding amount of Deoli Branch of the opposite party Bank cannot be repaid by the sale of the mortgaged property, in that event, the other properties of the complainant shall be liable and the bank shall be entitled to recover the loan amount from the complainant and his other properties. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner bank filed appeal before the State Commission but without success as the State Commission affirmed the order passed by the District Forum and dismissed the appeal. The petitioner Bank aggrieved by the said order has approached this Commission under section 21 (b) of the Act with the prayer to set aside the said order.

(2.) Shorn off the unnecessary details, the material facts of the present case are that on 27.03.2006, the complainant had availed loan facility in the sum of Rs.28.00 Lakh from the petitioner bank and to secure the repayment of the said loan, he had mortgaged his immovable property viz., plot No. 85, Sona Bari, Gopalpura, Byepass, Jaipur by depositing the title deeds, like original allotment letter, original certificate of allotment, original lease deed, all dated 23.05.2000 issued by the Jaipur Development Authority in the name of the complainant duly registered with Sub Registrar Jaipur I. The complainant became irregular in repaying the loan amount and the authorities of the Bank started exerting pressure on the complainant and threatened to auction the mortgaged plot taking resort to the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The complainant contacted the bank officials and informed them that he can repay the loan by selling the mortgaged property to which the bank officials had no objection and, therefore, the complainant in order to save his business and reputation agreed to sell the mortgaged property ( plot in question) to a certain Bhanu Pratap Singh r/o Beawar District Ajmer for a throw away price of Rs.25.00 lakh although the market value of the plot was claimed to be Rs.35.00 lakh. Complainant received various sums of money amounting to Rs.23,95000/- from the above named vendee between 25.10.2008 to 16.11.2009 and on receipt of the said amount, the complainant deposited the same with the petitioner Bank in due discharge of his liability. Since the vendee was insisting for execution of the sale deed, complainant called upon the bank officials to release the title documents of the plot deposited by him with the bank. This triggered the controversy between the parties inasmuch as the bank declined to release the title deeds on the plea that the complainant was in arrears of another loan which the complainant had taken from Deoli Branch of the bank. The said branch of the the bank having furnished an irrevocable bank guarantee in favour of the Rajasthan Industrial Corporation which the bank had to honour on the complainant committing certain default. Not only that the bank declined to release the title deed to the complainant, bank filed an original petition under the Debt Recovery Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal Jaipur in respect of the Deoli Branch loan and alongwith said petition also filed the original title deeds of the plot before the Debt Recovery Tribunal of the Jaipur Branch which were the subject matter of the loan. Complainant alleging deficiency in service filed the complaint seeking the following relief against the respondent bank:

(3.) That on account of illegal threats given by officials of the opposite bank, the complainant was compelled to sell his property with value of Rs.35 Lac in Rs.25 lac and therefore, directions be given to the Bank for compensating the loss of Rs.10 Lac.