BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.328-2021

DATED ON THIS THE 29^th November 2022

Present:   1) Sri. B.Narayanappa

M.A., LL.B., - PRESIDENT  

                     2) Smt.Lalitha.M.K.,

M.A., B.A.L., LL.B., - MEMBER  

                        3) Sri Maruthi Vaddar,

                                                B.A., LLB (Special)  - MEMBER

Sri B.NARAYANAPPA,

PRESIDENT

1.       The complainant Sri Krishnoji Rao, resident of Mysuru has filed this complaint against the OP No.1- The Manager, SBI, Market Branch, Mysuru and OP No.2- The Chief Manager, SBI, Ashoka Road, Mysuru praying to direct the OPs to trace out the original sale deed dated 11.06.2003 and to return the same to complainant and to pay compensation of Rs.16,00,000/- for the tension, trauma caused to complainant and also for practicing deficiency in service and Rs.25,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings and Rs.2,00,000/- to the Legal Aid Account of this Commission and grant such other reliefs as this Commission deems fit to grant.
2.       The brief facts are that:-

The complainant is the owner of schedule property more fully described in the schedule to complaint and he is retired Head Armed guard and Ex-serviceman and he raised loan for purchase of schedule property in the year 2003 and again raised loan for alteration of building in the year 2013 from SBM now the same is merged with SBI based on title deeds deposited by the complainant with OPs.The OP No.1 sanctioned home loan of Rs.3,55,000/- on 11.06.2003 and the OP No.2 had sanctioned loan of Rs.6,40,000/- in the year 2013 under loan account Nos.54037694143 and 64113886630.The complainant was retired from the service on 31.07.2021 and from his retirement benefits he cleared the loan on 10.08.2021 and closed the above said loan accounts and the OPs have issued loan closure letter dated 10.08.2021.On 26.10.2021, the complainant gave requisition to OPs for collecting the title deed.The OP No.1 gave reply on 29.10.2021 stating that the collateral house property got migrated to Ashoka Road Branch, Mysuru. They have searched the documents in their branch, but they did not find it and it is further contended that even after closure of the loan accounts by the complainant, the OPs did not return the original documents and they went on dodging the matter. Therefore, it is alleged deficiency in service on the part of OPs.The non-returning of the documents by the OPs to complainant results in mental trauma, tension caused to complainant.Hence, this complaint.

3.       After registration of this complaint, notices were ordered to be issued to OPs.  In spite of service of notice upon OP No.2, it does not turned up, hence, OP No.2 was placed exparte.  In response to notice, OP No.1 appeared before this Commission through its counsel and has filed written version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts, hence, same is liable to be rejected.  The complainant was a staff associated with OP No.1, and admits availment of housing loan by the complainant from OP No.1 bank by keeping the property as security in the year 2003 under loan account No. 54037694143.  Since from 2005 till closure of the loan, the said account was being maintained with SBI, Ashoka Road, Mysuru and loan account was transferred from OP No.1 to OP No.2 and all the documents pertaining to loan was also transferred and additional fresh loan has been given to complainant under account No. 64113886630 and after lapse of 9 years, the complainant has come up with present complaint which is hit by limitation.  For all these reasons, OP No.1 prays to dismiss the complaint.   
4.       The complainant has filed his affidavit by way of examination in chief and same was taken as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10.  The OP No.1 has also filed its affidavit by way of examination in chief and same was taken as R.W.1.
5. We have heard the arguments of both sides.  The counsel for complainant and counsel for OP No.1 have filed their respective written arguments and the complainant has produced citations. 
6.        The points that would arise for our consideration are as under

1. Whether the complainant proves that the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and thereby he is entitled to the reliefs as sought for?
2.  What order?

7.       Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

      Point No.1 :- Partly in the affirmative.

      Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

8.          Point No.1:- It is not in dispute that the complainant had availed housing loan of Rs.3,55,000/- on 11.06.2003 from OP No.1 bank and also raised loan of Rs.6,40,000/- in the year 2013 from OP No.2 bank under loan account Nos.54037694143 and 64113886630 by depositing title deed of the schedule property belonging to the complainant and it is also not in dispute that the above said two loans were closed by the complainant and the OPs have issued loan closure letter dated 10.08.2021.  The complainant got marked Ex.P.1 the copy of absolute sale deed in respect of schedule property belonging to complainant.  Ex.P.2 is the loan closure letter issued by OPs dated 10.08.2021 closing the loan account Nos.54037694143 and 64113886630.  Ex.P.3 is the requisition letter sent by the complainant to OPs to return the documents in view of closure of loan.  Ex..4 is the letter issued by OPs to complainant stating that the account and collateral house property got migrated to Ashoka Road Branch, Mysuru.  Ex.P.5 is the letter addressed by complainant to Chief Manager, SBI.  Ex.P.6 is also letter issued by OP No.1 bank regarding closure of the loan account Nos.54037694143 and 64113886630.  From Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.6, it is crystal clear that the OPs have issued letter to complainant closing the two loan account of complainant.  Therefore, it is crystal clear that the two loans availed by complainant from OP No.1 on 11.06.2003 for Rs.3,55,000/- and Rs.6,40,000/- from OP No.2 in the year 2013 have been cleared/closed by the complainant and the OPs bank had issued loan closure letter in favour of the complainant.  Therefore, it is crystal clear that the loan raised by the complainant from OP Nos.1 and 2 bank has been cleared by the complainant and it is also not in dispute that the above said two loans have been raised by the complainant from OP Nos.1 and 2 by depositing title deed pertaining to schedule property belonging to complainant with OPs bank and after closure of the loan accounts, the complainant requested the OPs by writing a requisition dated 26.10.2021 to return the documents deposited with OP bank at the time of availing the loan.  But, the OPs instead of returning the original documents, had issued letter dated 29.10.2021 which is marked as Ex.P.4 stating that the account and collateral house property got migrated to Ashoka Road Branch and as per the contention of the complainant that the Ashoka Road Branch i.e. OP No.2 had searched the documents in its bank, but could not find it and they went on dragging the matter for one or the other reasons and till today the OPs not at all traced the original documents and did not return the same to the complainant. Therefore, it is alleged deficiency in service on the part of OPs. From the material documents placed on record, prima-facie establishes that the loan availed by the complainant under loan account Nos.54037694143 and 64113886630 have been cleared by the complainant and in this regard, the OPs have issued loan closure letter to the complainant, but did not return the original documents deposited with OPs pertaining to schedule property belonging to complainant.  Therefore, the complainant has come up with present complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs with a prayer to direct the OPs to return the original documents.
9. The complainant has relied upon decisions rendered by the Hon’ble National Commission in R.P.No.4550/2013 wherein the Hon’ble National Commission has observed that the complainant was sanctioned loan of Rs.3,50,000/- and he had cleared the entire loan, No due certificate was issued to him by the petitioner SBI and the petitioner informed the complainant that he had never deposited the sale deed.  Therefore, the complaint was came to be filed by the complainant before District Forum, the District Forum reached to the conclusion that complainant had deposited the original title deed with petitioner.  Hence, the petitioner was directed to return the original documents and to pay penalty of Rs.50,000/-.  The above cited decision aptly applicable to the present case on hand. 
10. From the complaint averments and documentary evidence relied upon by the complainant and version of OP No.1, it is crystal clear that even though the complainant had cleared the loan raised by him under loan account Nos.54037694143 and 64113886630 and even though the OPs have issued loan closure letter to the complainant.  But, they did not return the original documents to the complainant.  It is nothing but deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  Therefore, we are of the considered view that the complainant has proved the alleged deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  Therefore, we are of the firm view that the OPs are to be directed to return the original documents and to pay compensation. Hence, we answer point No.1 partly in the affirmative.
11.       Point No.2:- For the aforesaid reasons, we proceed to pass the following

:: ORDER ::

1. The complaint of the complainant is hereby allowed in part.
2. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are hereby directed to return the original documents i.e. title deed /registered sale deed dated 11.06.2003 pertaining to schedule property and khata of the said property to the complainant within 2 months from the date of this order and to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- towards deficiency in service caused to the complainant with interest at 6% p.a. within 2 months from the date of this order.
3. Further opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are hereby directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the litigation to the complainant within 2 months from the date of this order.  Failing which, the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- + cost of litigation Rs.5,000/- = Rs.2,05,000/- shall carry interest at 10% p.a. till payment.
4. The complainant is at liberty to take action against the opposite party under Section 72 of the C.P.Act, 2019 for non-compliance of this order.
5. Furnish the copy of order to both parties at free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, corrected by us and then pronounced in open Commission on this the 29^th November 2022)