Sri Purna Chandra Mishra,President

The complainant Suresh Gupta has filed this case U/S  35 of the C.P Act. 2019 alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P. for not returning his original Sale-Deed, which was deposited with the O.P for availing a loan even after clearance of all the dues and praying therein for a direction to the O.P. to return the Sale-Deed in question to the complainant and pay compensation of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and harassment cause to him.

1.           Brief fact leading to the case is that, the complainant availed a loan from the O.P Bank in the year 1993 amounting to Rs.16,00,000/- vide C.C A/c No.2148520381. In order to avail the loan, the complainant had deposited his original Sale-Deed mortgaging the property pertaining to Khata No.313 of Mouza:  Khariar Road. After clearing his loan dues, he requested the OP Bank to return his original Sale-Deed deposed with Bank, but the Bank failed to return the document inspite of several written and verbal complaints, for which he has filed this case for the aforesaid reliefs.

2.           Notice was issued to the opposite party from this Commission and after receipt of the notice, the O.P appeared through his Advocate and filed his written statement.  In his written statement, the O.P. has admitted the fact that the complainant had availed the loan from the Bank and had also cleared the dues and on 15.11.2021 he has been provided with the No-Dues Certificate. But the O.P denied to have received the original Sale-Deed in question and therefore pray for dismissal of the case with cost against him. It has been further pleaded that since the complainant had filed a complaint before the  OMBUDSMAN, the preset proceeding is not maintainable and is hit by Resjudicata.

3.           The complainant in support of his case has filed the copy of the No-Dues Certificate issued by the OP-Bank on 15.11.2021, copy of the complaints lodged with the OP. Bank on 15.11.2021, 01.12.2021, 09.12.2021, copy of the CRPC receipt of RBI vide complaint No.N202122003006937, copy of the R.O.R in respect of Khata No.313 of Mouza- Khariar Road, copy of the letter No/B/O/SBP/2021/22/102 dated 21.03.2022 and the copy of the envelop. On the otherhand, the O.P has filed the copy of the Agreement of Hypothecation to  Secure Demand Cash Credit against Goods.

4.           The Complainant has filed his evidence in shape of affidavit.

5.           The first and foremost point to this case relating to this case is whether the case is maintainable in view of the complaint made before the OMBUDSMAN as claimed  by the O.P. There is nothing on record to show that the complainant had lodged any case before  the OMBUDSMAN of the Bank. It is revealed that the complaint has  only filed a complaint on 22.12.2021 to the Reserve Bank of India regarding the mis-conduct of the O.P-Bank. So there is nothing on record to show that any similar complaint is pending before any other Statutory Authority to adjudicate the matter. Besides complaint before the OMBUDSMAN of the Bank is only an internal complaint and the proceeding before the Banking  OMBUDSMAN is not a judicial proceeding. So the objection raised by the O.P. is unacceptable in the eyes of law.

6.           In view of the pleading  and counter pleading , the only point for determination is whether the complainant had deposited his original Sale-Deed with O.P-Bank at the time of availing the loan ?

7.           It is crystal clear from the letter No.B/O/SBP/2021-22/102 dated 21.03.2022 addressed to the Branch Manager , Central Bank of India, Khariar Road ,Branch from the Chief Manager, Central Bank of India of Sambalpur Branch that the document in question has been mis-placed during shifting of the Branch from Gole Bazar Sambalpur to Shanti Nagar, Sambalpur, for which notice was published in two leading News papers informing and cautioning  the public not to deal with the property in any manner and anybody coming across the original Title-Deed of the property to deposit it in the Branch  and he has regretted for the inconveniences caused to the customer. So it is crystal clear that the O.P has completely resorted to false-hood in his written-statement  and has filed false affidavit in a judicial proceeding  deliberately and wilfully. As the fact of deposit of Sale-Deed is well made out against the O.P-Bank,  he is liable  to compensate  the complainant  for deficiency  in service  and harassment and is liable to be punish for filing  affidavit  before  this Commission and  for attempting  to mislead a judicial  proceeding  deliberately  and wilfully and hence the order.

                   O R D E R            

The complaint petition is allowed on contest against OP. The OP is made liable for causing deficiency in service and harassment to the complainant. The OP is directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the  complainant and a sum of Rs. 20,000/-towards cost of litigation. The OP is further directed to   return  the Original  Sale-Deed to the complainant,if it is traced in future.The OP is further imposed  with a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/-  for filing of false affidavit  in a judicial proceeding  before this Commission, payable to the State Consumer Welfare Fund and recover  the same from Pankaj Kumar ,Branch Manager,Central Bank of India, Khariar Road.The Office is directed to start a criminal proceeding  separately  against Sri Pankaj Kumar , Branch  Manager,Central Bank of India,Khariar Road  for filing  of false affidavit  deliberately  and wilfully  in a judicial proceeding .The compliance of this order  shall be  made within  30 days  from the date of this order,failing which  interest  @ 10%  shall be charged on the whole amount.

Parties to bear their own costs.