By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President: The case of the complainant is as follows: The first petitioner had availed a loan from the respondent Bank in 1983. For availing the loan the, title deed of the property of second petitioner had deposited as security. The loan amount fell in arrears and the bank was forced to approach the court and a suit was filed in Thrissur Munsiff Court as O.S.474/89. The amount had recovered as per the R.R. proceedings and the loan has closed. Later the first petitioner has approached the Bank for return of the title deed of the property. On 31.1.03 an application has submitted for the return of document, but no reply was sent. Hence lawyer notice sent dated 19.3.05. But no reply and no remedy. Hence the complaint. 2. The counter is as follows: The O.P. is not maintainable since it is barred by limitation. The first petitioner had availed of loan from the Bank in the year 1983 for which the second petitioner had handed over the title deed of her immovable properties to the bank towards the security. Of course, the property was not mortgaged to the Bank. Subsequently, the petitioner defaulted payment of the loan amount to the Bank. In spite of repeated demands from the part of the Bank, no effort was made by the petitioners to repay the loan amount. The Bank was thus compelled to file a suit O.S.No.474/1989 before the Honble Munisff Court, Thrissur for the realization of the loan amount. The suit was decreed in favour of the Bank. The title deed pertaining to the property of the second petitioner was produced in the court in the above suit. It has thus become a part of the court record. Even though the suit was decreed by the court, the Bank instead of filing E.P., resorted to take R.R. proceedings against the petitioners. Hence the matter was accordingly referred to the R.R. Department for initiating R.R. proceedings against the petitioners. The R.R. Department initiated proceedings by issuing Revenue Recovery notice No.2190/1993 to the petitioners. In pursuance to the above R.R. proceedings, the petitioners remitted the entire amount in the R.R. Department discharging the liability in the year 1993. All the transactions pertaining to the loan were finally closed in the year 1993. In the lawyer notice dt. 19.3.05 it was stated that the petitioners had demanded the title deed after one month of the closure of the loan account and further stated that the Bank did not return the title deed even after repeated demand. Hence the petitioners ought to have filed this petition within two years from the date of refusal by the Bank. Hence there is delay of 10 years. When the Bank has received a letter dated 31.1.05 the Bank conducted a thorough search in the court records as well as in the Bank, but it could not be traced out since the court staff stated that the entire records was destroyed on the expiry of the period of preservation of the same. This fact was fully convinced to the petitioners. Reply dated 13.4.05 were also sent to the petitioners. No inconvenience and loss caused to the petitioners. The Bank is not liable for the loss if any. They did not appraise the fact before the R.R. authorities. Hence dismiss the complaint. 3. The points for consideration: (1) Is the complaint is barred by limitation? (2) Is there any deficiency in service? (3) Is the Bank liable to return the documents? (4) Relief and costs. 4. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 to P6 and Ext. R1. Both the parties have filed affidavit in support of the case. 5. Point No.1: The first point to be discussed is the period of limitation. According to the respondent Bank in the lawyer notice dated 19.3.05 it was stated on behalf of the petitioners that they had demanded the title deed after one month of the closure of the loan account and further stated the Bank did not return the title deed. So the complainants ought to have filed within 2years from the date of refusal by the Bank. The period of limitation prescribed by the Consumer Protection Act is two years from the date of cause of action. Here the complainant had issued lawyer notice dated 19.3.05 and fresh cause of action had arisen from that date. The complaint has filed on 25.4.05 within the period of limitation and this defence will not stand. 6. Points-2 to 4: The complainants are alleging deficiency in service on the part of respondent Bank in not returning the title deeds of the property, which was handed over to the Bank as security for availing loan. The definite case of complainants is that the first petitioner had availed loan from the respondent Bank by depositing the title deeds of the property of first petitioner. The loan amount fell in arrears and the Bank sought relief through court and the document had produced before the Munsiff Court, Thrissur in O.S.474/89. The case was decreed and R.R. proceedings were initiated against the petitioners and they remitted the entire amount in the R.R. department and discharged the liability in the year 1993. The petitioners had demanded the documents back, but it was not returned so far. An application had put on 31.1.03, but no reply had sent by the respondent. The contention of respondent is that when they received a letter dated 31.1.05 the Bank conducted thorough search but not traced out. They searched in the court also. But it was not found since the court staff stated that the entire records were destroyed on the expiry of the period of preservation of the same. So it is clear that the destruction of the document was done by the court, not the R.R. Department. Respondent contended that the petitioners did not insist the R.R. authority to get the title deed. This version cannot stand and there are no latches on the part of petitioners by not proceeding against R.R. authorities. In O.S.474/89, the respondent Bank produced the document. Hence it was the bounden duty of the Bank to get it back. Their claim was satisfied and they did not take initiative to get back the title deed of the petitioner. The petitioners were under the impression that the document was in the bank and they will return it by closing the arrears. But the respondent committed default in not applying for the document in time and the losers are poor consumers. When they received their amount they forgot the petitioners. As per Ext. R1, they had taken steps to get the document only on 23.5.07, but the closure of the liability was in the year 2003. There is gave service deficiency on the part of respondent Bank. Only on their fault the cause of action for this case arisen. Hence they are liable to compensate it and to return the document. As per Ext. P3 the petitioners had demanded the document on 31.1.05, but the action for obtaining the document was done only on 23.5.07. The Bank already known that the document was destroyed by the court and they tried to blame the petitioners for not insisting the R.R. authorities. The respondent Bank tried to shift the liability. But it has miserably failed. The document was entrusted to the Bank by the petitioners. Since it is the bounden duty of the respondent to return it. If the document is lost for ever, the Bank has to take appropriate steps for an alternate remedy. It was also not done. The 2nd petitioner who was suffering from diseases and the first petitioner had been spent a lot of money for her treatment by borrowing. To return the money the petitioners urgently needed the document for availing loan. Respondent is answerable for this dilemma. There is grave deficiency in service on the part of respondent. 7. In the result, complaint is allowed and the respondent Bank is directed to return the document within 15 days. If the document is not available for the reason of destruction by the court, the respondent Bank shall provide appropriate alternate remedy to the petitioners. For the grave deficiency in service the Bank shall pay Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as compensation to the complainants. No order as to cost. Comply the order within one month. Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 4th day of September 2008.
