Complaint filed on: 12-02-2021
Disposed on: 18-02-2022
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU
CC.No.17/2021
DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
PRESENT
SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc., L.L.B, PRESIDENT (I/c)
SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A., L.L.B, LADY MEMBER
Complainant: -
J.D.Kempaguli Gowda
S/o Late Doddanna
Aged about 62 years,
R/at #90, Jinnagara village,
Amruthur hobli,
Kunigal Taluk
(By Sri.N.Vijay Gowda, Advocate)
V/s
Opposite party:-
Canara Bank,
Reptd by its Manager,
Amruthur Division,
Amruthur Hobli,
Kunigal Taluk
(By Sri.Jagadeeshappa, Advocate)
ORDER
SRI.KUMARA.N, PRESIDENT (I/c)
This complaint is filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to direct the Opposite party (hereinafter called as OP) to return the original documents pertaining to EMU Bird farm loan and to compensate Rs.31,00,000-00 towards damages for defective or default service causing mental agony, inconvenience and grant such other relief.
2. It is the case of complainant that, he is an account holder/customer of OP bank and having account bearing No.0540101013533 with customer ID 51997508 since 14-6-2020. Since then the complainant has availed several benefits from the OP bank and he has availed Rs.2,00,000-00, Rs.8,40,000-00, Rs.1,50,000-00 on 4-6-2005, 7-7-2008 and 25-7-2009 towards house construction, EMU bird Farm and OD loan respectively and these were repaid and accounts were settled. The complainant further submits while availing EMU bird farm loan, he submitted original documents pertaining to S.No.269/2C and Sy.No.269/2A to the OP bank as collateral and executed a registered mortgage deed before the Sub-Registrar, Huliyurudurga. After clearance of the said loan amount, the complainant approached the OP bank to take back the original documents by giving requisition letter on 9-4-2019 but the OP bank neither not replied nor handed over the original documents. The complainant again on 5-7-2019 and 11-10-2019 approached the OP bank in this regard but OP bank not responded. Further the complainant in the month of Nov.2019 approached the Deputy General Manager and Chief General Manager, Canara bank, Bengaluru but it was not fruitful, as a result the complainant filed the complaint before Banking Ombudsman in turn Banking Ombudsman ordered the OP bank to issue all certified copies of lands of complainant which was submitted at the time of availing loan from the OP bank, accordingly the complainant approached the OP bank by requesting to return the original documents related to Sy.No.269/2C and Sy.No.269/2C and sanction further loan, but the OP bank refused. The complainant’s daughter marriage was fixed and he in need of money, he required original documents to avail loan from other banks, as the original documents not returned by the OP bank, the complainant made to avail loan from individuals accordingly the complainant taken loan of Rs.21.00 lakhs at 21% interest per annum i.e. Rs.4,41,000-00 and performed his daughter marriage. The complainant has suffered mental agony and pain and also suffered to arrange money to perform his daughter marriage without original documents and he was unable to get loan at different banks. There is a great default caused by the OP bank as it amounts to deficiency of service. Hence, this complaint.
3. After the service of notice, the OP has appeared through its learned counsel and filed objection contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP. The subject matter of the complaint already decided by the banking ombudsman RBI, under the powers vested in Clause 11 (30)a of Banking Ombudsman scheme 2006 and the same amounting to Resjudicata hence, on this ground this complaint is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. Further OP submitted that allegations made by the complainant were partly true and other were false and not within the knowledge of the OP. The OP submitted that the complainant is the customer of OP bank and availed housing loan from the OP bank and repaid as per the bank terms and conditions. It is further submitted that on 20-11-2018 the original documents returned to the complainant wherein the complainant acknowledged the same. The complainant has submitted xerox copies of all documents for the legal scrutiny report (LSR). The OP denied other allegations made in the complaint. Further submitted that, as per the order of the Banking Ombudsman the OP bank by followed all procedures and obtained certified copies of lands which were submitted by the complainant at the time of availing loans. The OP bank informed the complainant to collect the certified copies, as the complainant not turned up which were sent by RPAD cover which returned as refused. Hence, there is no deficiency of service, the complainant has come up with this false, frivolous and vexatious complaint. Hence, the OP prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.
4. The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and produced eleven (11) documents which were got marked Annexure-1 to 11. On behalf of the OP bank one Ajay K.Babu, Manager has filed affidavit and produced Exs.R1 t oR19.
5. We have heard the oral arguments of the complainant and OP and written arguments submitted by the complainant and OP bank and the points that would arise for determination are as under:
1) Whether the complainant proves that there is
deficiency in service on the part of OP bank?
2) Is complainant entitled to reliefs sought for?
6. Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:
Point No.1: In the negative
Point No.2: In the negative for the below
REASONS
7. Point No.1 and 2: The complainant counsel argued that the complainant suffered as the OP bank misplaced the original documents pertaining to Sy.No.269/2C and Sy.No.269/2A which were submitted by the complainant to the OP bank at the time of availing the different loans. In spite of repaid the loans amount, the OP has not returned the said original documents nor further sanction loan to the complainant. This act of the OP bank made the complainant to avail loan to individual by paying more interest hence, the complainant suffered financial loss and mental agony.
8. The complainant in his complaint and affidavit evidence stated as the complainant is the customer of the said OP bank since 14-6-2020, on contrary further submitted that he availed loan from the OP bank for Rs.2,00,000-00, Rs.8,40,000-00 and Rs.1,50,000-00 on 4-6-2004, 7-7-2008 and 25-7-2009 towards housing, EMU Bird Farm and KISAN OD respectively. The document produced by the complainant Annexure-2 which was given by the OP bank wherein housing loan, EMU Bird Farm and KISAN OD loans availed by the complainant repaid and closed by payment, settled under OTS scheme respectively proves that the complainant was defaulter.
9. The OTS means “One time settlement” too is used by lenders / bankers to recover dues from individuals with default payment history. The lenders / bankers agrees for a one time settlement amount which will be lower than the total amount of due, borrower need to repay the agreed at once within the time given by lender/bankers. But if the settlements made after the “write-off” the credit report will be updated as “post-write-off settled”, It will impact credit score and will be considered as a negative aspect by the banks/lenders, inter turn lender/banker reluctant give loan in future to such borrowers, which proves the complainant was defaulter and the OP bank has refused to sanction the further loan and the OP has not committed any deficiency of service towards complainant.
10. The OP bank argued that there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP bank, the OP bank which is functioning as per the guidelines of RBI and loans were sanctioned to the complainant as per bank norms, as the complainant has default payment history the OP bank refused to sanction the further loans.
11. As alleged by the complainant that the OP bank has not returned the original documents pertaining Sy.No.269/2C and Sy.No.269/2A, the OP bank has produced Ex.R3 which was acknowledgement of the complainant dated 20-11-2018 for received the above said original documents, which proves that the OP bank returned original documents of complainant.
12. The OP bank has produced nineteen documents and marked as R1 to R19 which were LSR, documents scrutinized, the complainant’s request letter, the complainant’s letter to Banking Ombudsman, Banking Ombudsman order, police complaint of OP, affidavit of OP, paper publication, OP notices to the complainant to collect the certified copies, postal RPAD returned as refused which proves that as per the order of Banking Ombudsman the OP bank obtained all certified copies of lands which were submitted by the complainant at the time of availing loans, by following all procedures i.e. lodging police complaint, paper publication and paying necessary fees in Sub-Registrar office, and the OP bank efforts of contacting the complainant to handed over the certified copies i.e. contacting the complainant over phone, sending notice and certified copies through RPAD post which refused by the complainant, prove that there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP bank. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed without costs.
Further the complainant is directed to collect the certified copies of the documents from the OP bank within 30 days from the date of this order.
Furnish the copy of order to the complainant and opposite party at free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 18th day of February, 2022).
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (I/c)
