THUKARAM ANANTHA SHET Vs. KARNATAKA BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. This appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 16.6.2000 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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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.