Orissa

Cuttak

CC/238/2022

Minarva Ray - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager,State Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

Mrs S Soren & associates

19 Apr 2023

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                              C.C. no.238/2022

 

         Minarva Ray,

         W/O: Jogendra Kumar Ray,

         At:Divine Nagar,P.O:Nayabazar,

           P.S:Chauliaganj,Dist:Cuttack.                                             ... Complainant.

          Vrs.

 

Brahcn Manager,State Bank of India,

Bidyadharpur ADB,Cuttack,

                   At-Bidyadharpur

P.O:Central Rice Research Institute(CRRI),

Cuttack.                                                                                       ...Opp. Party.

 

 

Present:            Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                             Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    28.11.2022

Date of Order:  19.04.2023

 

For the complainant:                    Mrs. Sevati Soren,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P. :                                         None.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President            

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that she had obtained a loan to the tune of Rs.35,16,000/- from the O.Ps for construction of her building after providing all the required documents to that effect.  The said loan was sanctioned in two loan Accounts vide A/c. No.31087069143&A/c. No.33150609866.  The complainant had approached the O.P for returning all the documents to her which she had submitted towards mortgage of the land, as per condition for sanction of the loan amount.  When she was unable to get back all those documents from the O.P, she had issued a legal notice to that effect on 28.7.2022 to the O.P.  The O.P had replied to her said letter vide letter dt.9.8.2022 with some castigating remarks but had admitted about the deposit of the title-deeds and also has admitted about the liquidation of credits granted to her.   In the said letters, O.P has mentioned that the guarantor of the said loan for the complainant was also a co-owner of the land alongwith the complainant who had requested not to hand over the property documents to the complainant alone.  The O.P had also requested the complainant to approach alongwith co-owner Narendra Kumar Parija on any business day for collecting the title documents jointly.  The complainant thereafter had issued another legal notice dt.13.10.22 asking the O.P to release the single documents mortgaged as collateral security in A/c. No.33150609866 wherein she was the sole owner.  It is further contention of the complainant that the co-owner had issued irrevocable power of attorney and as such the O.P had no authority to advise her to join with the co-owner for collection of the documents.  She has further urged that since when the loan amount has been cleared and all the credit has been liquidated, the O.P has no authority or justification to withhold the documents which amounts to unfair trade practice.  Thus, the complainant has come up with this case seeking direction to the O.P to return her all the mortgaged documents in favour of A/c. No.3108769143 and to pay her compensation to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- towards her mental agony and harassment.  She has further claimed from the O.P her litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- together with a prayer for any other relief as deemed fit and proper.

          She has filed copies of several documents in order to establish her case.

2.       Having not contested the O.P has been set exparte vide order dt.31.1.2023.

3.       The points for determination in this case are as follows:

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P and if he had  practised any unfair trade ?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Point No.ii.

Out of the three points, point no. ii being the pertinent one is taken up first for consideration here in this case.

                             After going through the averments as made in the complaint petition and perusing the copies of documents attached thereto, it is noticed that admittedly, the complainant had availed loan to the tune of Rs.13,16,000/- from the O.P in two loan accounts, out of which she had submitted documents of her sole ownership in A/c. No.33150609866 but the documents as provided by her in loan A/c. NO.31087069143 reflects the guarantor Narendra Kumar Parija as the co-owner of the mortgaged property alongwith her.  It is the contention of the O.P as made out from the copy of the letter dt.9.8.22 vide Annexure-3 that the said mortgagor Narendra Kumar Parija had requested the O.P not to hand over the title deeds to the complainant Minarva Ray.  But it is also reflected therein that the credit facilities granted in favour of the complainant Minarva Ray has been liquidated.  Since because the O.P has not contested this case nor has filed any documents in order to apprise this Commission that infact the said guarantor Narendra Kumar Parija had expressed his desire for not returning the joint ownership documents to the complainant Minarva Ray alone; in absence of the same, this Commission cannot simply sit quietly when the loanee had cleared the loan amount as taken by her to the O.P and when she demands back all her mortgaged documents.  By not providing her those documents, the O.P has definitely practised unfair trade and is of course deficient in his service.  Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the complainant.

Points no.i & iii.

             From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is maintainable and the complainant is definitely entitled to the reliefs as claimed by her.  Hence it is so ordered;

 

                                                                             ORDER

             Case is allowed exparte against the O.P.  The O.P is directed to hand over the mortgaged documents of property to the complainant against loan account No.31087069143 forthwith.  The O.P is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant towards her mental agony alongwith a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost of the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 19^th day of April,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.          

                                                                                                                            Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                      President

 

 

                     

                                                                                                       Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                Member