IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT S I L I G U R I.
CONSUMER CASE NO. : 107/S/2016. DATED : 21.02.2018.
MEMBERS : 1. SMT. PRATITI BHATTACHARYYA.
2. SRI TAPAN KUMAR BARMAN.
COMPLAINANT : SRI MUKTI NATH ROY,
S/O LATE SHIB NATH ROY, R/O of C/O NORTH BENGAL, CHEMICAL, WARD NO. 33, BANKIM SARANI, LAKE TOWN.
O.Ps. 1. : THE BRANCH MANAGER,,
STATE BANK OF INDIA, STATION FEEDER RPAD BRANCH, SILIGURI, P.O & P.S. SILIGURI, DIST.- DARJEELING,PIN 734005.
2. : THE CHIEF MANAGER,,
STATE BANK OF INDIA, MANGAL DEEP BUILDING, HILL CART ROAD, SILIGURI, P.O & P.S.-SILIGURI, DIST-DARJEELING,PIN-734001.
3. : THE REGIONAL MANAGER,
STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE REGION II SILIGURI, SKY STAR BUILDING, SEVOKE ROAD, SILIGURI, DIST- DARJEELING,PIN-734001.
FOR THE COMPLAINANT : Sri Santanu Chakraborty, Advocate.
FOR THE OPs : Sri Prabir Kumar Sikder, Advocate.
J U D G E M E N T
Sri Tapan Kumar Barman, Ld. Member.
This case record is taken up today 2018 for judgement and order.
This is a case of non-return of mortgaged documents to the loanee by the financing Bank inspite of full repayment of Loan. As per existing procedure, the bank grant loan against mortgage of moveable/ immovable property by the retaining documents in proof of ownership and title of that property. However, after clearance of the loan in full, the loanee gets back that documentary proof from the Bank. In the instant case, the OP bank did not return the documents assigned to it as mortgage to the complainant even after full replacement of loan by the complainant loanee and inspite of bank’s issuing “no dues”
Contd…..P/2
-:2:-
certificate. In reality, the OP bank misplaced those mortgaged documents and requested the issuing authority of those documents to arrange for duplicate ones for the complainant.
One Shri Mukti Nath Roy availed loan amounting Rs.1.30 Lakh sanctioned on 2.7.2004 plus Rs.25,000/- sanctioned on 17.5.2005 by the state bank of India, station Feeder Road, Branch , Siliguri, the Loan a/c No. being 10448917864 and 10448917875 respectively. The loanee, Shri Roy ,had ,by rule to mortgage/ assign 03 LIC policies No. 451302814,452150764, and 450212375 as security against that loan. The loan was repaid/ cleared in time, i.e., within 05.09.2016 and the Op bank issued two” no dues” certificates both dated. 06.09.2016 to the loanee complainant. At the time of returning the mortgaged documents to the ex-loanee, Shri Mukti Nath Roy, the OP , SBI, station Feeder road branch, Siliguri, found that the mortgaged LIC policies were misplaced during shifting of their office. However, the OP issued a letter NO. Misc/ adv./2016-17/133 dated 14.9.16 to the LIC, Silguri, Branch-1 informing of this fact and requesting to issue duplicate policies to the complainant . But on querry in the office of the LIC, it is detected that the said 03 policies were not assigned to the LIC office and as such the LIC officials denied to re-issue the same to the complainant. For such deficiency in service on the part of the OP , the consumer Shri Roy filed this case before this forum.
Complainant, Shri Mukti Nath Roy falls within the definition of consumer u/s 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. He hails from Lake town, w/No. 33, Dist- Jalpaiguri and the O.P. bank Branch is at station Feeder Road, Siliguri. Therefore the cause of action occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of their Forum. Moreover the loan plus the compensation claimed amounts amounting to Rs.(1,55,000 + Rs.12.20,000+2,50,000=) 16,25,000/- which is well within the pecuniary power of this forum. So this case is maintainable in this forum.
The complainant submitted the following documents in of his case:-
- Sanction letter dated 02.07.2004 for a loan of Rs.1,30,000/-
- Sanction letter dated 17.5.2005 for a loan of Rs.25,000/-
- “No dues” certificate dated 06.09.2016 against loan A/C No. 10448917864.
- “ Non Dues” certificate dated 06.09.2016 against Loan A/C No. 10448917875
Contd.......P/3
-:3:-
- Letter No. Misc/ adv/ 2016-1017 / 133 dated 14.9.16 issued by the OP bank to the LIC, requesting to issue duplicate policies to the complainant.
Ld Advocate for the complainant submitted that the complainant took a loan of Rs.1, 55,000/- from the OP no.1 against three LIC policies as security for such loan. Repayment of the loan amount was completed within the stipulated period, i.e.,05-09-2016 and the OP bank issued “ no dues” certificate on 06.09.2016 . The complainant was then supposed to get those LIC’s policies back, but the OP bank instead of returning those documents , issued a letter dated 14.9.16 to the LIC admitting the misplacement of the said documents and requesting to issue duplicate documents to the complainant. But the complainant came to know on enquiry in LIC office those 03 policies were not assigned to the LIC by the OP no.1 and as such LIC officials denied to reissue the documents. It was further submitted for the complainant that misplacement of the mortgaged documents is a gross negligence on the part of the Op and that complete repayment of loans confers upon the complainant , the absolute right to get back the LIC policies kept as security against such loan. It is the duty of OP to return the mortgaged/ assigned documents. Not assigning the mortgaged documents to the LIC and LIC’s refusal to issue duplicate ones on that ground make realization on interest from the complainant by the bank illegal and hence the entire amount of interest becomes logically refundable to the complainant.
The OP on the other hand, submitted that the complainant’s loan was fully repaid and the Loan a/c were duly closed. That, of course, make the complainant entitled to get LIC policies kept as security back at his possession. The OP admitted that during the continuance of loan those three policies were misplaced from the file at the time of shifting of their office to their present building. As such request was made to the LIC to issue duplicate policies to the complainant after contacting him. But the complainant did not inform the OP bank whether the complainant at all contacted the LIC and if so , whether the LIC issued duplicate policies to him or not. The complainant did not ask for any co-operation from the OP.
Contd.......P/4
-:4:-
The OP thereafter sent a reminder dated 27.2.17 requesting the LIC to let them Know the fate of the request already made on 14.9.16. Hence, there is no negligence or deficiency on the part of the OP. The complainant did not inform the OP of difficulty, if any, faced by him in LIC office, yet filed a case before the forum without any notice / intimation. Hence the refund of interest as claimed by the complainant is not justificate. Hence the complainant should be dismissed.
Thus, while the complainant argues that the OP bank did not assign the (misplaced) policies to the LIC, the Op argues that he requested in writing to the LIC to issue duplicate policies to the complainant and sent a reminder also but the complainant without informing the OP whether the LIC has complied with such request of Op filed their case before the Forum.
We observe that the complainant alleged denial of the LIC to issue the duplicate policy but in support of this allegation, he did not attach any copy of such denial. The complainant did not mention the assured and the date of maturity also. In regard to the loan, the complainant is a consumer to the bank but in regard to the policies, he is a consumer to the LIC . Inspite of LIC’s alleged refusal of the bank’s request letter dated 14.9.16 and subsequent reminder dated 27.2.17 , the complainant did not make the LIC , Siliguri , Branch-I a party… necessary or proforma … to the case. The complainant did not state anything about the after-math of the Ops request letter and the reminder. The OP bank admitted the misplacement of the mortgaged (LIC) policies of the complainant and hence requested the LIC to issue duplicate ones that means that the bank is not supposed to assign policies to the LIC. Yet the complainant stated that the OP bank‘s not assigning the policies to the LIC is a clear negligence on the part of the OP and the entire interest realized by the OP is illegal and refundable to the complainant. How can the misplaced LIC policies be re-assigned? Yet the complainant appears to contractdict in himself by demanding as relief both the refund of interest for not
Contd.......P/5
-:5:-
getting the duplicate policies and also the LIC policies mortgaged with the OP bank. There is no calculation sheet or payment certificate or any other documentary proof for the interest of Rs. 12,20,000/- for the principal amount of the Loan of Rs.1,55,000/-.
We perused the complainant and all the documents attached there to, evidence of the complainant and other relevant papers, as well as written version, evidence of the Op and heard both the sides in full. On perusal, we arrive at the view that the complaint lacks useful substance and is partial also, i.e. not whole in the sense that it contains allegation not involving all the concerned sides. We rather find justification in the counter- submission of the OP.
Hence , it is
O R D E R E D
That the case No.107/S/2017 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP Nos. 1 to 3.
The case is thus disposed of.
