J U D G E M E N T
The case of the complainant in a nutshell is as follows:
In this case the complainant Manik Halder, Proprietor of Halder Brothers, Ambagan, Burnpur, Burdwan for smooth running of his business opened one loan account bearing no. 11214377779 with State Bank of India, Asansol Branch and for financial assistance the complainant took loan from the OP against adequate collateral security and mortgaging immovable property which is equitable in nature in the shape of original Deed of Sale bearing no. 334, Sl. No. 4107, dated 27.7.1994, pages 274 to 279 of his spouse, namely, Smt. Manju Halder on 06.02.2002 which the OP accepted
1
and acknowledged by putting its seal and signature of the concerned the then officer and an acknowledgement letter was issued by the OP-Bank in this respect. Subsequently the complainant paid, cleared, settled and closed the aforesaid loan account fully and finally. A copy of certificate was issued by the Assistant General Manager, SBI, Asansol Branch bearing no. Branch/SME/ADV/14-15/No Due, dated 08.5.2014 which would make it evident about the closure of the aforesaid loan account. Prior to full and final payment as well as closure of the aforesaid loan account, the complainant requested the OP in writing by way of letter dated 06.5.2014 for returning the original Deed of Sale lying at their end while it was assured by the OP that it would take some time and to bear with then. The complainant again requested the OP in black and white dated 16.6.2014 for returning the original Deed of Sale which has not been returned even after full and final payment/closure of account which is a glaring example of deficiency in service on the part of the OP and unfair trade practice. Original Deed of Sale is very important and valuable document which may be used otherwise but anyone and may cause a serious detrimental and threatening irreparable loss and injury to the complainant in case of illegally withholding the original Deed of Sale and non-returning the same by the OP. The complainant has been running from pillar to post for redressal of his genuine and bonafide grievance but every effort on the part of the complainant proved futile and failed to yield any proactive response. In such a situation the complainant claims relief as under:
- To pass necessary direction upon the OP to return the original Deed of Sale bearing no. 344/94, dated 27.7.1994 to the complainant,
- To pass necessary direction upon the OP to pay compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 19,50,000=00 for mental pain, agony, harassment, sufferings, stress, anxiety, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice,
- To pass necessary direction upon the OP to pay the sum of Rs. 50,000=00 to the complainant towards cost of present litigation,
- To pass any other or further order as deem fit and proper.
Complainant has submitted documents like Xerox copy of Sale Deed of 334/94 and acknowledgement letter issued by the Bank, Photostat of no due certificate dated 08.5.2014, Photostat of letter dated 06.5.2014 & 16.6.2014. The complainant also filed one Ruling reported in 2014 (4) CPR 592 NC of Hon’ble National Commission.
2
The OP has contested the case by filing written version denying the entire allegation made by the complainant in the petition of complaint. The OP has further stated that the complainant has taken a loan by mortgaging property and thereafter the outstanding dues of the said loan has been liquidated and the concerned OP already issued a no due certificate after completing all formalities which is already admitted by the complainant. The OP further submits that the OP issued no due certificate after completing all formalities i.e. return of documents as well as all collateral securities. Bank has already returned every document before issuing the aforesaid no due certificate. The OP further submits that though the complainant has already received his all documents but with an ulterior motive the complainant wants to harass the OP and for this reason the complainant has filed this instant suit. The OP also submits that the Deed is in the name of Smt. Manju Halder who is not a party in this instant suit and from this intention it is clearly proved that this instant case is filed only to harass the OP. The OP further begs to submit that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The complaint is baseless, without any cause and the complaint is concealing the actual state of facts and circumstances and filed this complaint as Test Suit for undue gain from the OP by misguiding the Ld. Forum. The OP prays for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost.
OP has submitted documents like Deed of mortgage and acknowledgement letter of loan and also written notes of argument.
-: Decision with reasons :-
The admitted fact in this complaint is that the complainant took loan for running his business from the OP-Bank for which the complainant deposited the original Deed of Sale in the name of his wife Smt. Manju Halder bearing no. 3344, Sl. No. 4107 as collateral security. Thereafter the outstanding loan was repaid by the complainant and the OP-Bank issued a no due certificate after completing all formalities.
The allegation of the complainant is that though the complainant repaid all the liabilities to the OP-Bank but till date the OP-Bank has not returned back the original Deed of Sale which was deposited before the OP-Bank at the time of taking loan. The complainant wrote two letters to the OP-Bank i.e. on 06.5.2014 & 16.6.2014 for returning the original Deed of Sale which has not been returned even after full and final payment/closure of the account. It has been found from the record that a certificate was issued by the Assistant General Manager, SBI, Asansol Branch bearing
3
no. Branch/SME/ADV/14-15/No Due, dated 08.5.2014 from where it is evident that the loan account in the name of the Halder Brothers bearing A/c. no. 11214377779 has liquidated the loan amount in full and it has also been certified that borrowers does not owe any further amount to the respect of the above account. The case of the complainant is that though he repaid all the liabilities and requested the OP-Bank in writing to return back the original Deed of Sale but the same has not been returned by the OP-Bank. On the other hand, the argument of the OP-Bank is that though the complainant has repaid all the liabilities of the loan account and requested the OP-Bank for returning back the original Sale of Deed but as the original Deed of Sale is in the name of Smt. Manju Halder, not in the name of the complainant Sri Manik Halder, they are not in a position to hand over original Sale of Deed to the complainant. Moreover, Smt. Manju Halder is not a complainant in this consumer complaint.
In this context the complainant has filed one Ruling reported in 2014 (4) CPR 592 (NC) decided on 15.10.2014 wherein Their Lordships have held that ‘Loss of original title deed would lead to erosion in the value of property; therefore, the opposite party can be directed to pay compensation for loss of title deed’. In this case the complainant raised loan by mortgaging house of his wife by way of equitable mortgage. Original title deed deposited with the bank, but the bank did not return the title deed despite payment of entire loan. Therefore complaint filed and the District Forum allowed the complaint. In Appeal the State Commission reduced the quantum of compensation. The bank further filed revision petition, alleging that no loss will be caused to the complainant. The revision petition dismissed with costs. The fact of the case is totally different from the fact of the case in hand. In this case the OP-Bank has taken the plea that the original Deed of Sale is in the name of Smt. Manju Halder, the wife of the complainant. But the application for returning the original Deed of Sale has been submitted by the complainant, who is not the recipient of the Original Deed of Sale. Moreover, in the case in 2014 (4) CPR 592 (NC) though the complainant raised loan by mortgaging house of his wife, but his wife was also a party to that case as Complainant no. 2. But in the case in hand Smt. Manju Halder, the wife of the complainant is not a party to this case. Therefore, the stand of the OP-Bank in this case is very much acceptable by denying the complainant not to hand over the original Deed of Sale to him which is in the name of Smt. Manju Halder. In this connection the complainant has filed one affidavit on 20.4.2015, i.e. on the date of final hearing, sworn by Smt. Manju Halder, the wife of the complainant that her husband filed the instant complaint in consultation with and with her implied consent, for a just and legal
4
cause and as such neither she had nor she will raise any dispute in the self-same issue in future and the order of the Ld. Forum binding upon her. But we cannot consider such affidavit as it has been filed in a very belated stage rather on the date of final hearing and the OP-Bank vehemently opposed against such filing of affidavit on the date of final hearing.
In the above facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that the complainant has miserably failed to substantiate that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP-Bank and it had done any unfair trade practice on its behalf. Accordingly, it is
O r d e r e d
that the petition of complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed on contest. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case there is no order as to costs.
Let a plain copy of this final order be supplied to the parties free of charge.
(Asoke Kumar Mandal)
Dictated and corrected by me. President
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Durga Sankar Das)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Durga Sankar Das)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
