SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)<br /> <br /> <br /> The complaint is filed against the Branch manager, Union Bank of India, Idukki Branch who is the opposite party, for getting a direction to hand over the original title deed of the petitioner which was deposited at the time of availing an agricultural loan.<br /> <br /> The complainant availed an agricultural loan from the opposite party in the year 1982 under Sadhu Scheme. The loan amount was handed over to the complainant after executing necessary documents as stipulated by the opposite party. At the time of availing the loan, the complainant deposited the title deed of his property having an extent of 3.18 acres comprised in Thankamany Village to the opposite party to create an equitable mortgage in favour of the opposite party bank. The complainant remitted the entire balance in the loan account on 26.07.2005 and closed the account. After closing the loan account No.444 with the opposite party, he demanded back the title deed and other documents. But the opposite party directed the complainant to come after a week so that the document can be given back. The title deed receipt issued to the complainant at the time of depositing the title deed is lost from the complainant and the said matter was informed to the bank. The petitioner is ready to file necessary indemnity bond to the bank. The complainant several times demanded back the documents, so far it was not given back. The petitioner several times approached the Muvattupuzha Branch of opposite party to get back the documents as directed by the opposite party. But all the attempts were in vain. The petitioner is disabled from transferring his property or availing any loan on the security of his property without the original title deed. The opposite party is withholding the title deeds of the petitioner without any valid reasons. The opposite party has caused much mental agony and sufferings to the petitioner. Alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party, the complaint has been filed for compensation under various heads.<br /> <br /> 2. The opposite party appeared and filed a written version and admitted that the complainant had availed an agricultural loan of Rs.7,100/- from the opposite party in the year 1982 under Sadhu Scheme and it is denied that the complainant deposited his title deed of his property at the time of availing the loan. There is absolutely no evidence to prove that the complainant had deposited the title deed of his property with the opposite party for creating an equitable mortgage in favour of the opposite party. No equitable mortgage was necessary for availing a loan under Sadhu scheme as averred in the complaint. It is also admitted that the complainant had closed his loan arrears on 26.07.2005 and it may be true that the opposite party had directed the complainant to come after a week to verify whether any document is deposited with the bank. The opposite party never directed the complainant to come after a week to collect the documents. The vital piece of evidence to prove the deposit of title deed is the title deed deposit receipt. But it was not with the complainant. From the same it can be persumed that the complaint is only a concoted story articulated by the complainant without any basis. The complainant might lost his title deeds in some other way and the opposite<br /> party is not liable for the same in any way. During 1982, the mortgage in favour of the opposite party was created at the opposite party's Muvattupuzha branch and not at the Idukki branch as averred in the complaint. The opposite party have no personal revenge with the complainant to withhold the documents of his property. The opposite party had not caused any mental agony or sufferings to the complainant. The complainant by delaying the repayment of the loan for almost 23 years caused business loss to the opposite party and the petition may be dismissed.<br /> <br /> 3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?<br /> <br /> 4. The evidence consists of the the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P5 marked on the side of the complainant. No oral evidence was adduced by the opposite party and the documents produced by the opposite party as per the direction of the Forum is marked as X1 series.<br /> <br /> 5. The POINT :- The complainant is a consumer of the opposite party by availing a loan under Sadhu Scheme in the year 1982 for Rs.7,100/-. As per the complaint, the complainant deposited his original pattayam No.319 of 3.18 acres of land comprised in Thankamany Village in the opposite party's office for creating an equitable mortgage at the time of availing the loan. The entire loan amount was closed by the complainant on 26.07.2005. Ext.P2 is the receipt issued by the opposite party showing the same. The above facts are admitted by the opposite party. Ext.P1(series) is the loan pass book produced by the complainant. After closing the entire loan, the complainant demanded for the return of original pattayam of his property of 3.18 acres of land which was deposited at the time of availing the loan. But the bank demanded to produce the receipt which was issued by the bank at the time of depositing the title deed. As per the complaint the said receipt was lost from him because of the long delay. Ext.P3 is the advocate notice issued to the opposite party by the complainant demanding the original pattayam of the complainant. Ext.P4 is the true copy of the reply notice issued by the opposite party asking the complainant to produce the necessary receipt issued at the time of depositing the title deed. The only dispute regarding the matter is whether the complainant deposited the title deed before the opposite party's office at the time of availing the loan for creating an equitable mortgage. It is admitted by the opposite party in the written version that the complainant availed an agricultural loan under Sadhu scheme. It is also admitted by the written version in the 3rd paragraph that the bank directed the complainant to come after a week to verify whether any document is deposited with the opposite party, when the complainant demanded the title deed. In Ext.P4, reply notice issued by opposite party, stated that the complainant must contact with the necessary receipt issued by the opposite party, at the time of deposit of title deed. Ext.P5 is the letter written by the opposite party on 17.08.2005 to its Muvattupuzha branch asking for verifying the title deed register from June 83 to December 83 in Muvattupuzha branch, whether the complainant's title deed is deposited there. In that letter title deed No.319 is mentioned. Exts.P4 and P5 shows that the opposite party is not sure whether the complainant's title deed is deposited in the opposite party' s bank. The loan is closed by the complainant on 26.07.2005. The loan file is not produced by the opposite party. If a title deed is deposited, that can be seen from the loan file. As per PW1, he deposed that the title deed was deposited at Muvattupuzha branch by him with two other persons who were also availed the same loan, they have received the title deed back from the bank. The complainant met with an accident and that is why the long delay was caused for closing the loan. The learned counsel for opposite party cross examined that, the loan was closed on 26.07.2005, but the complaint is filed for getting the title deed is after a long delay of one year. This means that the title deed was lost from the complainant and the petition is a fabricated one. But Ext.P5, the letter written by opposite party to its Muvattupuzha Branch on 17.08.2005 states that the complainant is claiming for the title deed and it is on the very next month of closing the loan. The title deed register produced by the opposite party in the year 1981 to 1983 which is marked as Ext.R1(series) is an incomplete register. The opposite party never revealed that, if the title deed was not deposited before them, what was the security given by the complainant at the time of availing the loan. Whether any bond was created by the complainant, or the complainant produced any sureties or guarantors for the loan. The opposite party is not even keeping a loan file for the important document like the title deed. The bank is not even certain that whether the original patta of the ordinary person is deposited there or not at the time of availing the loan. It is a gross deficiency in the part of the bank. So we think that the document is lost from the opposite party. The petitioner was not able to transfer his property, take any loan without the original patta. The petitioner caused mental agony and sufferings due to the non-availability of this original deed of 3.18 acres of land. Several times the age old petitioner approached the opposite party's office at Cheruthony branch and Muvattupluzha branch for the title deed. So we think it is fit to give a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for the sufferings and mental agony caused to the petitioner. It is not proper to give a direction to the opposite party to hand over the original title deed if the same is lost from them. So we direct them to give a certificate stating the deed is lost from the bank. The petitioner is also entitled to get Rs.2,000/- for the expense of getting a duplicate one and Rs.2,000/- for the cost of the petition.<br /> <br /> In the result, the petition allowed. The opposite party is directed to give the complainant a certificate stating the original patta of the 3.18 acres of land comprised in Thankamany Village of the petitioner is lost from the bank. The petitioner is also entitled to get a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.2,000/- for the expenses of getting a duplicate patta and also Rs.2,000/- for the cost of the petition within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the outstanding amount shall carry further interest at 12% per annum from the date of default.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of July, 2008 <br /> <br />