IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, APPUZHA
Friday the 16th day of March, 2018.
Filed on 03/08/2017
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George, President
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.206/2017
between
Complainant:- Opposite Party:-
1. Sri. Vasudeva Kurup, The Manager,
Veliyakathu House, Panjab National Bank,
Thathampally.P.O, Mullackal Branch,
Alappuzha. Alappuzha.
2. Smt. Asha
W/o Muraleedhara Nair
Veliyakathu House,
Thathampally.P.O,
Alappuzha.
(By Adv.K.George )
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
The complainants had availed a loan from the opposite party bank from the Nedungadi Bank Alappuzha by mortgaging their title deeds with the opposite party. When the loan became due the bank had filed a case as O.S. No. 351/1998 against the complainant before the civil court and it was decreed on 30-11-2000. Thereafter the matter was settled as per one time settlement. Though the loan was closed by paying the amount demanded by the opposite party the original title deed relating to 10 Acres 31 sq.m. in survey No.81/1 A-3 of Aryad south village had not been returned to the complainant. The said documents were produced by the bank before the civil court for their evidence. Thereafter the bank was amalgamated with the Panjab National Bank. Complainants approached the opposite party on several times for getting back their documents. So far the opposite party did not return the documents. The aforesaid conduct of opposite party has resulted much mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. Alleging deficiency in services on the part of the opposite party the complaint is filed.
2. The version of the opposite party is as follows:-
The complaint is not maintainable. Complainant is barred by limitation. The suit is of 1998. It was filed by Advocate CK Parameswara Panicker who was a Senior Advocate of Alleppey Bar. He passed away in 2000 and before his death itself the Decree was time barred and as per the legal Advice of the said Senior advocate the said advocate got the documents returned and the Bank returned to the Party. Thereafter Parties came to the Bank and expressed for OTS and the Bank accepted OTS and at that time the Petitioners asked whether the Bank is having a copy of the said title deed and Bank staff informed the party after verification that the Bank files regarding the same is duly destroyed after the prescribed period of 8 years. They again came and made sure that it is correct and thereafter the above complaint is filed with ulterior motives. The complaint knows very well about the death of Advocate CK Parameswara Panicker & the Bank rules regarding the period for destruction of files & return of title deeds after the Time bar of the Decree as these were duly explained to the Party by the Bank staff without knowing the malice. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
Complainant was examined as PW1. The documents produced marked as Exbt. A1 & A2. The opposite party was examined as RW1.
3. The points for consideration are:-
1) Whether the complaint is maintainable?
2) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite
party?
3) If so the reliefs and costs?
4. It is an admitted fact that the complainants had availed a loan from the opposite party bank by depositing title deeds of the second complainant’s property in survey No. 81/IA-3 of Aryad South village. According to the complainants even though loan was closed as per one time settlement, the original title deeds had not been returned to them by the opposite party. According to the opposite party when the loan amount becomes due they filed civil suit against complainants and it is decreed and bank returned title deeds to the complainant. But no documents produced by the opposite party to prove that they have returned the documents to the complainant. According to the complainant the loan was closed under one time settlement on 30-06-2015 Exbt. A1,A2 and A3 evidenced the same. Opposite party also admitted in the version that the loan was closed as per one time settlement. If the loan was closed on 30-06-2015, the contention of the opposite party that they returned the documents to the complainant 1 ½ decades back when the suit against to the complainant was decreed is untenable. The bank to whom the loanee deposited their title deeds to create equitable mortgage is not expected to say such lame excuses. Moreover not even a scrap of paper produced to prove that they have returned the title deeds to the complainants. Hence we are of opinion that even after the loan was closed the opposite party failed to return the title deeds to the complainant and that amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the opposite party. As long as the title deed was not returned the cause of action is continuing and complaint is not barred by limitation.
In the decision reported in R.P.No. 3800 of 2014 Indian Oversease Bank Hydrabad vs. K. Bal Reddy and others, it was held by the Hon’ble National Commission that on account of loss of title deed there would be erosion in the re-sale value of the property. Hence the opposite party bank is liable to pay compensation to the complainant because the value of property is bound to be affected if the original title deeds had been lost. In this case complainant claimed only Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) towards compensation and it is allowed.
In the result complainant is allowed opposite party is directed to give Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation. Opposite party is directed to publish the public notice in any of the prominent Malayalam daily Malayala manorama or Mathrubhumi regarding the irrecoverable loss of title deeds. The expense for the publication shall be paid by bank, that should be done within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order otherwise it will carry penalty of Rs.100/- per day till need full is done. Bank will get certified copy of the title deed and link documents with the help of the complainant and all expenses shall be borne by the bank. Complainant will approach them within the period of 15 days from the receipt of this order and the needful should be done within 60 days and other wise penalty of Rs. 100/- per day shall be imposed upon the back. The opposite party is directed to give Rs.2000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 16th day of March, 2018.
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine. D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - A. Vasudeva Kurup (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Receipt for Rs.1,80,000/-
Ext.A2 - Certificate dtd on 11-02-2016
Evidence of the opposite party:-
RW1 - Pyari Viswam (Witness)
//True copy//
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/SF
Typed by: Sa/-
Compared by:-
