AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
OUR only hope is that in the dispute between the maternal grandfather and the paternal grandfather, interest of the minors, Apurva Sharma aged 12 years and Yashasvi Sharma, may not suffer.
THIS appeal is against the order dated 9.7.2001 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissing the complaint of these two minor children filed through their maternal grandfather as their next friend/guardian. Parents of the children died on 17.3.1996 in motor accident. Father was Manager in Indian Bank and the mother was an Associate Professor, Department of History, University of Rajasthan. They took loan from HDFC, the first respondent for Rs. 3.00 lakhs for construction of their house. They received first instalment of Rs. 1,25,000/-. Then it appears mother withdrew and paternal grandfather joined with the father of the minors. For the purpose of loan, title deeds of House No. C-63B, Sarojini Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur which was in the name of paternal grandfather were deposited by way of security with the Bank. After the death of the parents of the minors, paternal grandfather returned the whole loan amount on 7.8.1998 and got back the documents of title.
COMPLAINT is directed against the Bank by the minor children through their maternal grandfather requiring the Bank to give them details of the loan amount and to return the documents relating to property No. C-63B, Sarojini Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur. In reply the Bank said that the documents of title have already been returned to the paternal-grandfather after the full of the loan amount had been paid. State Commission did not find any fault with the Bank and rejected that there was any deficiency in service on its part. State Commission, therefore, dismissed their complaint.
MR . Shiva Lahari Sharma, maternal grandfather of the minor children who is Advocate as well has challenged this order of the State Commission stating that he was the de facto guardian of the minor children. We do not think, we should go into all these questions. If the interest of the minor children is utmost hurt and more than that of paternal grandfather, he may well knock the doors of the Civil Court. We do not find any error in the order of the State Commission for us to take a different view. This appeal is dismissed.