IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT S I L I G U R I.
CONSUMER CASE NO. : 57/S/2014. DATED : 06.01.2016.
BEFORE PRESIDENT : SRI BISWANATH DE,
President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.
MEMBER : SMT. PRATITI BHATTACHARYYA.
COMPLAINANT : CHITTA RANJAN PAUL,
Shibmandir Medical More, Sarada Pally,
P.O.- Kadamtala, Dist. - Darjeeling.
O.Ps. 1. : STATE BANK OF INDIA, SILIGURI,
Mangaldeep, Hill Cart Road,
Siliguri Branch,
Code No.00184.
2. : STATE BANK OF INDIA,
Retail assets Central Processing Centre,
Sky Star Building, 4th Floor,
Sevoke Road, Siliguri- 734 001.
FOR THE COMPLAINANT : Self.
FOR THE OP No. 1 : Sri Prabir Kumar Sikdar, advocate.
FOR THE OP No. 2 : Sri Suprio Ghosh, advocate.
J U D G E M E N T
Sri Biswanath De, Ld. President.
The complainant’s case is succinctly summarized as follows :-
The complainant’s case is that complainant took a loan of Rs.1,50,000/- vide A/C No.11168953111. The total loan amount was paid by 01.09.2012. On 06.09.2012 he got no due certificate. At the time of loan application he deposited some documents. In spite of liquidating the loan amount he did not get back those documents which were deposited in the bank. The bank shifted his responsibilities to the
Contd…….P/2
-:2:-
office RACPC, but authority of RACPC told that there were not getting those documents. The complainant informed that matter in writing again on 13.09.2012. The SBI authority who granted loan took time in different pretext, but did not return back those documents. The complainant got one letter RACPC/SL/13-14/10/45 dated 08.04.2013. The complainant again knocked the door of RACPC but did not get those documents. The complainant also wrote a letter on 21.03.2014 for getting information by RTI, but concerned SBI did not make any reply. The OP No.2 did not make any suitable step for returning the documents. The complainant also made online complaint no.CS18411763396, but no effect. Hence, this complaint for getting the documents which were deposited with the Sakha No.184 (OP No.1) along with sale deed of own house and others papers. The complainant also prays compensation appended therein.
The Bank OP No.1 has contested the case filing Written Version denying inter-alia all the material allegations as raised by the complainant. The OP No.1’s case is that the complainant availed House Building Loan from OP No.1 bearing HBL Account No.11168953111. The complainant thereafter has liquidated the entire loan amount with the bank. The said document of loan has been sent to Retail Asset Central Processing Centre (RACPC) and thereafter to recovery cell of the bank. After getting notice from the Forum, they have searched the record room to recover the loan file of the complainant, but the same was not found. It is further alleged that said RACPC is the sole authority to trace out the titled deed of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1 and the same should be dismissed.
The Bank OP No.2 has contested the case filing Written Version denying inter-alia all the material allegations as raised by the complainant.
Contd…….P/3
-:3:-
OP No.2 admits that complainant had taken loan from State Bank of India, and accordingly paid all the dues lying in those account. The bank issued ‘No Dues’ certificate to the complainant and accordingly, handed all the documents which were lying in those loan account. So, no document is lying with the bank. Accordingly, complainant raised false claim.
Points for determination
1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs ?
2. Is the complainant entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
Decision with reason
Both issues are taken up together for the brevity and convenience of discussion.
Complainant has filed the following documents :-
1. Xerox copy of RTI application.
2. Xerox copy of application written to Manager, SBI.
3. Xerox copy of letter written to Chief Manager, SBI, RACPC.
4. Xerox copy of No Dues Certificate received from SBI.
5. Xerox copy of Deponent letter.
So, from the averment of both sides, it appears that complainant took loan from the bank by depositing deeds and other securities. The loan amount has been paid by the complainant. The bank issued clearing certificate. Bank OP No.1 also admits the claim of the complainant. The bank also admits keeping of documents, but documents have not been returned to the complainant by the bank.
The bank OP No.1 and OP No.2 have filed written notes on argument. It is argued that “the complainant availed the house building loan from the OP No.1 bearing HBL Account No.11168953111. The complainant has liquidated the entire loan amount with the bank.” It is
Contd…….P/4
-:4:-
also argued that after receiving notice the OP No.1 searched the record room to recover the loan file of the complainant, but the same could not find out in spite of vigorous searching. It is also argued by OP No.1 that “I submit that in spite of aforesaid circumstances the authority of this Opposite Party No.1 branch maintained the file of the Complainant and the same was maintaining by the said RACPC. This Opposite Party further submits that the said RACPC is the sole authority to trace out the title deed of the Complainant”.
Therefore, the principle contention of OP No.1 is that they took the documents from the complainant, but the same is lying with the OP No.2.
OP No.2 argued that complainant had taken all the documents when he paid the dues amount. The OP No.2 has handed over all the documents which were lying in those loan accounts”.
So, from the averments of the OP Nos.1 & 2, it is crystal clear that OP No.1 got the deed and other documents and granted loan and the said documents are lying in the custody of OP No.2 as per words of OP No.1. OP No.2 is legally connected with OP No.1 for administrative purpose. Accordingly, they are jointly liable for any act or any omission. It is their liability of the bank authorities to place the documents collected from the customer in safe custody, the bank authorities shall remember that their existing for the public and by the public. They are the creature by the public and for the public. The function of the bank authorities is for the welfare of the private public as well as society. Any sort of discrepancy from their part is palpably deficiency of service. It is reminded that original Sale Deed is a title deed of a property and it is a valuable title deed. The bank authorities shall take all possible measures to trace the same and hand over the same to the complainant.
The bank authorities are liable for deficiency in service, which they were unable to perform to the consumer public at large. They bank
Contd…….P/5
-:5:-
authorities shall compensate the complainant for mental harassment, physical harassment and harassment coming to this Forum again and again and other physical and mental injury by not availing such documents. Here the prayer has been made for Rs.10,000/-
The OP Nos.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay such compensation from their personal pockets and bank money being public money shall not be utilized for this purpose because deficiency had been done by those two persons i.e., OP No.1 & OP No.2. OP Nos.1 & 2 have discharged their duties without due care and attention towards the complainant. It was the duty of the OP Nos.1 & 2 to keep those documents in safe custody under their supervision for the interest of the public. The bank is constituted only for the interest of the public. Bank conducts business with the money of the public. Bank authorities mainly OP Nos1 & 2 should have take all possible steps to keep those documents in safe custody and now they cannot shift their liabilities on others and they shall compensate the complainant by their own pockets and shall also give the original title deed.
To discharge the duty negligently does not come within the purview of official act. Official Act must be performed with due diligence and with due care and attention for the benefit of the public i.e., customer of the bank. They cannot escape their liability by causing harm of the customer.
In the result, the case succeeds.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the Consumer Case No.57/S/2014 is allowed on contest against the OP Nos.1 & 2.
The complainant is entitled to get back the title deed and other documents from the OP Nos.1 & 2.
The complainant is further entitled to get Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment caused by the OP Nos.1 & 2.
Contd…….P/6
-:6:-
The complainant is further entitled to get Rs.15,000/- towards litigation cost from the OP Nos.1 & 2.
The OP Nos.1 & 2, who are jointly and severally liable, are directed to return back the original title deed and other documents, which were deposited by the complainant for taking loan, to the complainant within 45 days of this order.
The OP Nos.1 & 2, who are jointly and severally liable, are directed to pay Rs.1,50,000/- from their personal pockets by issuing an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant for mental pain, agony and harassment within 45 days of this order.
OP Nos.1 & 2, who are jointly and severally liable, are directed to pay Rs.15,000/- from their personal pockets by issuing an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant towards litigation cost within 45 days of this order.
In case of default of payment, the complainant is entitled to get interest @ 9% per annum on the awarded sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from the date of this order till full realization.
In case of default, the complainant is at liberty to execute this order through this Forum as per law.
Copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost.