KARNATAKA GARAGE Vs. STATE BANK OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant/complainant seeks enhancement of compensation from Rs. 10,000/- as awarded by the State Commission to Rs. 9 lakhs as claimed in the complaint.

(2.) APPELLANT was sanctioned cash credit limit of Rs. 80,000/- on 28.1.1988 by the respondent-Bank which was increased to Rs. 1,50,000/- in 1992. Since appellant wanted replacement of old machineries with new ones it needed working capital of Rs. 2 lakhs and application seeking sanction of term loan of Rs. 2 lakhs was, therefore, submitted on 6.4.1995 to the respondent-Bank. As appellant had hypotheticated the business and machineries to the respondent in 1988 to avail of cash credit facility, it was left only with property No. 225/B/SIHS Dandeli Town to avail of fresh loan. It was alleged that as per oral instructions of Bank, the appellant deposited the title-deed of said property with the respondent to avail of term loan of Rs. 2 lakhs. Respondent, however, did not sanction the term loan nor did it return the title deed. Because of non-return of title deed, the appellant was prevented from approaching other financiers for loan by pledging the title deed. Alleging deficiency in service, appellant filed complaint seeking direction to the respondent-Bank to sanction term loan of Rs. 2 lakhs or to return the title deed pertaining to said house. Rs. 9 lakhs by way of compensation were further claimed towards loss in business. Respondent contested the complaint by filing written version. It was not disputed that after cash credit limit was extended, the appellant applied for grant of term loan of Rs. 2 lakhs and deposited the title deed of property No. 225/B to secure that loan. However, it was alleged that on account of past experience of the respondent and conduct of appellant, the additional loan was not sanctioned. APPELLANT was allowed 60 days time for repayment of loan amount already taken. In that backdrop, title deed was retained. State Commission, disallowed the relief of grant of additional loan of Rs. 2 lakhs to the appellant. But, at the same time, the respondent was ordered to return title deed of the property and also to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental agony, etc. resulting from non-return of title deed. Having heard Mr. Girish Ananthamurthy for appellant, we are of the view that for non-return of title deed of property by the respondent, the appellant has been adequately compensated by awarding amount of Rs. 10,000/- by the State Commission. There is hardly any scope for enhancement of that amount of compensation in jurisdiction under Section 21(a)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed being without any merit. Appeal dismissed.