DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESAL COMMISSION
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C. C. CASE NO. 571/2017
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
16.11.2017 28.11.2017 12.04.2022
Complainant/s:- | SRI KANAI CHANDRA DAS, S/o Late Manindra Chandra Das of Chalk Kathalia, Surya Sen Pally, P.O. Sweli Telinipara, P.S. Titagarh, Dist. North 24 Parganas, Kolkata - 700121 -Vs- |
Opposite Party/s:- | - BANGIYA GRAMIN VIKASH BANK SANTINAGAR BRANCH, represented by the General Manager of Shantinagar, P.O. Nonachandanpukur, P.S. Titagarh, Dist. North 24 Parganas, Kolkata – 700122
- BANGIYA GRAMIN VIKASH BANK HEAD OFFICE, represented by the General Manager of Chuapur, Berhampore, P.O. & P.S. Berhampore Dist. Murshidabad, PIN – 742101
- BANGIYA GRAMIN VIKASH BANK SANTINAGAR BRANCH, represented by the General Manager of 371/A/2 Shalbagan, Barrackpore Road, P.O. & P.S. Barasat, Dist. North 24 Parganas, Kolkata – 700125
- BANGIYA GRAMIN VIKASH BANK HAMADAMA BRANCH, represented by the General Manager of Vill. & P.O. Hamadama, P.S. Deganga, Dist. North 24 Parganas, PIN – 743424.
- BANGIYA GRAMIN VIKASH BANK CHAMPADALI BRANCH, represented by the Senior Manager of 144/18 Jessore Road, P.O. & P.S. Barasat, Dist. North 24 Parganas, Kolkata – 700124.
|
P R E S E N T :- Shri Debasis Mukhopadhyay…………President.
:- Smt. Monisha Shaw …………………. Member.
JUDGMENT / FINAL ORDER
This is a complaint U/s 12 / 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The Complainant stated that after handing over the original title deed of his landed property, the Complainant availed loan of Rs. 10,56,500/- from the O.P. bank through loan account No. HBL – 01/90 (Old), 5213300000532 (New). The Complainant who was an employee of the O.P. repaid the entire loan amount on 19/04/2013. Thereafter, the Branch Manager of O.P. No. 4 issued a letter to O.P. No. 5 on 20/09/2013 to release the original title deed of the Complainant since the entire dues of the loan account was repaid. Then the Complainant went to the O.P. No. 5 for getting his title deed but the O.P. No. 5 did not do anything to release the title deed. Then the Complainant made written complaints before O.P. No. 1 that were received by O.P. No. 1 on 22/02/2014, 20/08/2015, 24/03/2016 and 28/06/2016 but the O.P. did not do anything. The Complainant also sent legal notice on 23/09/2016 for getting back the original title deed but the O.Ps did not do anything. The
Contd. To page No. 2 . . . ./
: : 2 : :
C. C. CASE NO. 571/2017
Complainant was harassed by the O.Ps who are guilty of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice and hence the Complainant filed this case praying for direction to the Opposite Parties
to release the original title deed of Complainant and to pay an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- for damages, Rs. 10,00,000/- as compensation, Rs. 10,000/-as expenses and Rs. 70,000/- as litigation cost.
The O.P. Nos. 3 and 5 contested the case by filing W/V denying the allegations of the Complainant. O.P. Nos. 3 and 5 submitted that the case was not maintainable and it was barred by limitations and there was no cause of action. They also stated that the Complainant being an employee of O.P. availed Staff Housing Loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 02/07/1990 from Shantinagar Branch against security depositing his title deed at Champadali Branch. He then extended the mortgage against enhancement of loan limit from time to tome while being posted at different branches till 12/05/2008 when the loan limit was enhanced to Rs. 10,56,500/-. These O.Ps stated that the Complainant was working as Manager and was assigned with the dues and functioning of Credit Officer which included execution of equitable mortgage of landed properties and also releasing title deeds on liquidation of loans for different branches under North 24 Parganas. The O.P. stated that the Complainant was in service of the bank and posted at Champadali Branch from 12/08/2013 to 28/02/2014 and therefore he was not needed to go to Champadali Branch for the specific purpose of releasing the original title deed because he was posted there as would be evident from the copies of attendance register. The Complainant was responsible as the Credit Officer of Champadali Branch for execution of mortgage and also for safe keeping of original title deeds. On 27/09/2013 when the Complainant handed over the letter dated 20/09/2013 of Hamadama Branch to the Champadali Branch, he instantaneously gave his nod for releasing of the title deed in his favour by noting ‘Released on 27/09/2013’ with signature below such note on the body of the letter dated 20/09/2013. After receiving the queries of the Branch Manager, the Complainant took delivery of the original title deed but did not sign as token of receipt, after the writing in his own hand (Received deed No. 2183). A copy of the letter is annexed with the W/V. This Contesting O.Ps further stated that the Complainant himself is guilty of having committed immoral and illegal acts unbecoming of a person financially holding responsible post of the bank and the Complainant had resorted to unfair and illegal means with malafide intention and hence the O.Ps prayed for dismissal of this case.
Considering the contention of the parties it appears that the points for consideration are whether the case is maintainable or not and whether the case is barred by limitations or not and whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
Decision with reasons:-
Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submitted that the Complainant is a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act. He also submitted that the entire dues of the
Contd. To page No. 3 . . . ./
: : 3 : :
C. C. CASE NO. 571/2017
loan account of the Complainant was repaid by the Complainant but still the O.Ps are not releasing the title deed of the Complainant and finding no other alternative the Complainant had to file this case for the reliefs as prayed for. He also submitted that the Opposite Parties
violated the terms and conditions for providing service and caused gross deficiency and negligent acts and unfair trade practice and therefore the Complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for.
We have considered the written complaint, the W/V, the evidence of both sides and the written argument and also the submission. It is found from the contentions of the parties that the loan account was admitted and repayment of the loan account is also admitted fact. The dispute is regarding the release of the title deed of the Complainant by the Opposite Parties. The Complainant stated that he paid the entire loan dues on 19/04/2013 but the Opposite Parties are not releasing his title deed inspite his several representations. The Opposite Parties contended that the Complainant was given the title deed when he was posted at the branch from 12/08/2013 to 28/02/2014 as Credit Officer and the Complainant was in charge of the releasing the title deed of the loan account holders at the relevant period.
From the document produced by the Complainant it is evident that there is a note ‘Released on 27/09/2013’ in the letter dated 20/09/2013 in which the Hamadama Branch requested Champadali Branch to release the title deed of the Complainant. This document is produced from the custody of the Complainant and therefore we find that the contention of O.P. is rather a believable proposition that the O.P. being Officer of the Branch took back the documents. However, no final conclusion can be drawn for lacking evidence regarding the return of the title deed by the O.P. to the Complainant.
Regarding point of limitation raised by the O.P. we find that the Complainant paid back the loan amount on 19/04/2013 as stated by the Complainant and the letter dated 20/09/2013 was issued for releasing the documents. The Complainant stated that inspite of letter dated 20/09/2013 he was not given the title deed by the O.P. Therefore, the cause of action arose just after the refusal by the O.P. on 20/09/2013 as stated by the Complainant. The Complainant filed this case long after on 16/11/2017 that is more than 04 years after the cause of action. As per provision of the Consumer Protection Act, the complaint case must be filed within 02 years from the date of cause of action and any delay can be condoned only if the Consumer can satisfy regarding the cause of such delay. But there is no such prayer from the Complainant for condonation of delay. Accordingly, we find that this case is clearly barred by limitation and cannot be entertained.
Accordingly we find that the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case as the case is not maintainable as it is barred by limitation.
Contd. To page No. 4 . . . ./
: : 4 : :
C. C. CASE NO. 571/2017
Hence,
It is Ordered:-
That the instant case being no. C.C. 571/2017 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.P. Nos. 3 and 5 and ex-parte against the rest.
Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.
Dictated & Corrected by me
President
Member President
