DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR,
KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. __35_ _ OF ___2017
DATE OF FILING :_17.03.2017 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 30.8.2018
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member(s) : Jhunu Prasad
COMPLAINANT : Md. Rejaul Haque, Vill.-Golpukur Mondal Para, P.S + P.O Baruipur, South 24-Parganas, Kolkata -700 144.
O.P/O.Ps : 1. Branch Manager, B.G.V Bank, Jibon Mondal Hat Branch, Vill.+ P.O- Mayahowri, South 24-Parganas, Pin-743337.
2. Ex. Branch Manager/Bimol Ghosh, B.G.V Bank, Jibon Mondal Hat Branch, Vill.+ P.O- Mayahowri, South 24-Parganas, Pin-743337.
_______________________________________________________________________
J U D G M E N T
Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President
Facts as it stand in the amended complaint filed by the complainant are that the complainant created an equitable mortgage in respect of his house property by depositing Title Deed with the O.P Bank for the purpose of taking a loan for purchasing a readymade house along with the land upon which the building stands. A loan of Rs.3,10,000/- was sanctioned by the O.P Bank i.e Bangiya Gramin Bikash Bank, Jeevan Mondal Hat Branch on 2.12.2008 to the complainant to enable him to purchase the readily built house vide loan account no. HLS 0000006/5251300000491. The complainant repaid the loan in full on 15.12.2016. “No Due Certificate” was also issued on 24.1.2017 in favour of the complainant by the Bank. All documents were also returned to the complainant by the Bank save and except the two documents i.e the Title Deed of his house and the Building Plan. Repeated requests of the complainant for return of the same have failed to evoke any response on the part of the Bank. Even legal notice dated 8.2.2017served on the O.P Bank has produced no impact. Therefore, the complainant has filed the instant case ,praying for return of the original sale deed and building plan or , alternatively prays for compensation of Rs.1 lac. Hence, arises the instant case.
The O.P Bank has been contesting the case by filing written version of their statement, wherein it is contended inter alia that all documents including the Title Deed were returned to the complainant and that the complainant received all those documents having signed the receipts. But, no building plan was deposited by the complainant and the question of depositing the same with the Bank does not also arise as the bank never requires the building plan to be deposited at the time of granting loan to the customer. The complaint is frivolous and vexatious filed with a view to giving vent to his anger against the bank and ,therefore, the complaint should be dismissed in limini.
Upon the averments of the parties, the following points are formulated for consideration.
POINT FOR DETERMINATION
- Is the O.P guilty of deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for ?
EVIDENCE ON AFFIDAVIT
Evidence on affidavit is filed on behalf of the complainant which is kept in the record after consideration. No evidence is led by the O.P and , therefore, the case is heard exparte against the O.P Bank.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point no.1 & 2 :
It is admitted fact of the case that the O.P Bank advanced a House Building Loan to the complainant on the equitable mortgage of the building created by the complainant in favour of the O.P Bank by depositing his Title Deed. Also admitted is the fact that the said loan has been liquidated in full by the complainant and clearance certificate has also been issued by the Bank in favour of the complainant. A copy of clearance certificate dated 24.1.2017 issued by the O.P Bank in favour of the complainant is also filed herein. What is disputed in the case is that the Title Deed and the Building Plan which were deposited by the complainant with the O.P Bank have not been returned to the complainant on liquidation of the loan. That the original purchase Deed was deposited with the Bank at the time of taking loan is admitted by the bank; because, the Bank has stated in its written version filed herein that all documents including the title deed have been returned to the complainant and the complainant also signed a receipt acknowledging the acceptance of those documents. Very good thing. If the Title Deed is returned by the Bank to the complainant, there is no problem and in that case, the complaint lodged by the complainant deserves to be dismissed. But before doing that, the O.P Bank will have to prove by cogent documentary evidence that they returned the said Title Deed to the complainant.
It is the version of the O.P Bank that the complainant received the said Deed having signed an acknowledgement. Where is that acknowledgement? The Bank has not filed the said acknowledgement before the Forum. Why? It is the best document to prove that the complainant has received all the documents including the Title Deed. Inability to file the said acknowledgement before the Forum indicates and indicates only that the Title Deed has not been returned to the complainant by the Bank. A copy of letter issued by Head Office of the O.P Bank is also filed herein, vide letter dated 18.1.2017. A perusal of this letter reveals that the Head Bank of the O.P also directed the O.P Bank to conduct a search to trace out the Title Deed of the complainant and to hand over the same to the complainant ,if available. So, regards being had to all these documents, we feel no hesitation to hold that the original Title Deed which was deposited by the complainant with the O.P Bank has not been returned to the complainant by the Bank. Perhaps, the said Title Deed has been misplaced or lost and, therefore, the Bank has not been able to return the same to the complainant.
Be that as it may, inability to return the same to the complainant by the Bank is inadequacy in the performance of their duty and this is a glaring example of deficiency in service on their part. The Bank will have to return the original Title Deed to the complainant and if they are unable to do so, they will have to pay compensation for their negligence.
It is also the grievance of the complainant that the sanctioned plan of the Building was also deposited with the Bank at the time of sanction of loan and that the same has also not been returned by the O.P to the complainant. It is the version of the O.P that they do never require the production of any sanctioned plan of the building as a matter of their usual banking practice at the time of granting loan to the customer. We cannot disbelieve this version of the O.P Bank and we have also seen that the customer is not asked to file such a document before the Bank at the time of sanction of the loan. However, the complainant may get a certified copy of such sanctioned plan from the concerned authority.
The said sanctioned plan is available to him. But the original purchased Deed of the complainant can never be available to him and, therefore, the complainant is likely to sustain a great amount of loss due to non-availability of the said document i.e the Title Deed of the house of the complainant and, for that reason, the O.P will have to pay compensation for not returning the document to the complainant.
In the result, the case succeeds .
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is decreed on contest against the O.P Bank with a cost of Rs.10,000/- .
O.P Bank is directed to return the Original Title Deed to the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony caused to the complainant by the O.P Bank, within a month of this order, failing which the O.P Bank will have to pay interest @10% p.a upon the compensation amount and cost amount till full realization thereof.
Let a free copy of this order be given to the parties concerned at once.
President
I / We agree
Member
Dictated and corrected by me
President
