Adv. For the Complainant - Sri Prakash Chandra Naik
Adv. For O.P - Sri Raghunath Acharya
Date of filing of the Case -26.11.2019
Date of Order - 01.12.2022
JUDGEMENT
Smt. Jyotshna Rani Mishra, Member
Facts of the case in nutshell -
1. The complainant availed case credit facility to the tune of Rs 75 000 Rupees Seventy Five thousand only from State Bank of India , Bolangir Branch and for creating equitable mortgage the complainant deposited in the State Bank of India , Bolangir Branch a registered Sale deed where in the schedule mentioned property was purchased by complainant.
-2-
Schedule
Mouza Bolangir Nzul P.S. Dist- Bolangir Thana no-56 out of khata No.49 plot No- 1072 Bahal Khari Aco.092 dec marked 2of 1936 settlement corresponding to plot No-1085/2803 Gharabari AC 0.092 dec out of Aco.165 dec of khata No- 149 of mouza Bolangir ka Ps/Dist- Bolangir Thana No- 152 of the current settlement.
The complainant failed to repay the loan amount. Hence the State Bank of India Bolangir Branch instituted Title mortgage Suit No. 41 of 1990 of the court of Civil Judge Senior divisions Bolangir for recovery of the loan amount with interest . In this suit the registered sale deed of complainant was deposited by the Bank and was marked exhibit 8. The suit was decreed in favour of the Bank . Then the Bank instituted execution case No.41. 1996 in the court of civil judge Bolangir . The complainant repaid the decreetal dues in the Bank and settled the loan account on dt.02.07.2005 and requested the Bank to return him back to the registered sale deed deposited by him for creating equitable mortgage to accommodate the case credit facility to the complainant.
Bank asked the complainant to come later. The complainant ran to the Bank several times but finding no result the complainant served a registered letter by registered post on dt. 27.06.2015 on the Bank to get back the registered sale deed . There after Bank take step to return the resisted sale deed of the complainant as is evident from letter Dt.08.02.2017 of Bank to Advocate Sri Raghunath Acharya the conducting lawyer of Bank in the court copy being marked to the complainant . The complainant waited and at last served a pleader notice by registered with AD through Advocate P.C. Naik Bolangir But Bank become remained complacent . The cause of Deputes is valid Rs 1 50 000 One Lakh fifty thousand On for the purpose of jurisdiction and fees.
The Complainant relies upon following documents for the present dispute .
1. certify copy of Judgment title mortgage suit No 41 of 1990 of the court of subordinate judge Bolangir.
2. Certify copy orders dt.02/07/2008 and dt 19.07.2002 passed in execution case no. 41/1996 of the court of civil judge Senior Division Bolangir
3 .Copy of Registered post letter dt.24.06.2015 to the Chief Manager State Bank of India Bolangir Branch
4. copy of letter dt.08.02.2017 sent by State Bank of India , Bolangir Branch address to Sri Raghunath Acharya Advocate Bolangir
5. Pleader s notice by registered post with Ad through Advocate Sri Prakash Chandra Naik. Bolangir to State Bank of India Bolangir Branch and Ad card thereof returned.
6. Any other document that will come to the notice of the complainant pending disposal of the case.
-3-
The reason cited by the Bank authorities was that property Documents relates to year old civil suit No. 41 of 1996 was conducted by Advocate Raghunath Acharya who was 311 that not in a condition to the court to Bank on so it is not possible to ascertain the date of disposal from the record available in the Bank. More over due to pandemic situation of Covid . 19 the staff of Dist Record Room of Civil court are not doing work regular and doing urgent matter only. Later they said suit was conduct by Advocate Raghunath Acharya was already expires .
Despite several correspondence with the Bank and Bank assured the complainant to remove the deficiency of service soon and took necessary steps in presence of the complainant such as reminding the Bank retainer Sri Raghunath Acharya to make necessary arrangement to return back the registered sale deed of the complainant. That the complainant waited with hope that the matter will be solved soon.
After hearing the arguments in the case the commission headed by its
Noted that the Bank represented by its Advocate who filed a written version had admitted that the entire loan amount had bun cleared and there is no due from the complainant . The Bank also admits that there has been a delay in retiring the original registered sale deed but the reason for delay is that the Bank had either misplaced or Lost the documents deposited by complainant the commission has observed.
ORDER
In the view of above in details I directed the Bank to return the Original document of complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of order failing which it shall pay Rs 3 00 000 Three Lakhs Only Would be an appropriate compensation for loss of original Documents further I directed to pay Rs 20 000 towards deficiency in service and mental agony and Rs.3 000 towards litigation cost. This order be complied with OP within one month , the date of receive of its Certified copy. failing which it shall make payment of amount above within 12 Percent interest per Annum from date of filing the present complainant till realization
PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION TO-DAY 1st day of December 2022.
.
R.K.TRIPATHY J.MISHRA
PRESIDENT I .C MEMBER.
