State Bank of India vs HUKUM CHAND DHINGRA

THIS is an appeal against the order dated 21.11.92 passed by the District Forum, Muzaffarpur in Complaint Case No. 70 of 1991. By this order the learned District Forum have directed the appellant to return the documents deposited by the complainant with them as security and have also been directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1,100/-.

THE facts of the case in brief are that the respondent was enjoying loan facility sanctioned in 1980 in the nature of cash credit. Against this loan the respondent created equitable mortgage of landed properties and deposited the title deed of the concerned properties. When the respondent failed to repay the dues of the appellant-bankers a certificate case was filed and the Certificate Officer issued notice to the respondent for realisation of the outstanding balance of Rs. 11,065/- and Court fee of Rs. 1150.00, totalling Rs. 12,215.00. THE respondent were allowed to deposit certificate dues in the monthly installment of Rs. 300/-. THE respondente complained to the District Forum concerned that against the certificate of Rs. 12,215.00 a sum of Rs. 12,550.00 had been paid by him. Still the Bank was not returning the documents. On this complaint the District Forum passed order as mentioned above. THE opposite party-appellants case was that even after the taking into the account the various payments made by the complainant-respondent, there still remained a due of Rs. 5360.00 to be paid and the District Certificate Officer by their Memo No. 192 dated 9.4.92, addressed to the Branch Manager of the State Bank of India (the appellant) have mentioned that for the dues of Rs. 5347/- the Bankers should make attempts to realise the amount at their end so that the certificate could be disposed of. We have heard the learned Counsels for the appellant and the respondent. The respondent was himself present and was heard. We have also perused the records of the District Forum, Madhepura.

We find that there is no deficiency in service to the respondent on account of any negligence by the appellant. Admittedly there was a loan facility granted and the documents were placed with the appellants as security for the loan. According to them there was still an outstanding sum of Rs. 5347.00 against the principal and interest for the loan sanctioned to the respondent and therefore they did not return the documents. The records of the Certificate Officer, addressed to the appellant also shows that the Certificate proceedings were still in progress and no final orders were passed about the liability of the loanee and the respondent by the loan taken from the appellant. Further, as to what was due and what was not due as per the terms of the loan agreement is a matter of accounting and the various Fora under the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the Act) can not go into the rendition of accounts between the two parries. The relief granted by the District Forum viz returning the security documents to the respondent is beyond the scope of the reliefs envisaged u/Sec. 14 of the Act. It was also beyond the scope of the jurisdiction of the District Forum to go into the legality or otherwise of the rate of interest. They could not have gone into the question the rate of interest being not legal even though the two parties had agreed to the same. Considering all these facts the order of the District Forum can not be sustained and is therefore set aside. In the result the appeal is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed without costs.