CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,PALAKKAD
Dated this the 30th day of September, 2016
PRESENT : SMT. SHINY.P.R, PRESIDENT
: SMT. SUMA. K.P, MEMBER
: SRI.V.P.ANANTHA NARAYANAN, MEMBER Date of filing : 30/06/2016
CC /93/2016
Sreesankar,
S/o.Unniayyappan, : Complainant
Chakkingalthodi,
Vadanamkurissi Post,
Ottapalam Taluk – 679 121
Palakkad
(By Adv.U.Muhammed Musthafa)
Vs
Canara Bank,
Rep.by its Senior Manager,
Kulappully SME Branch, : Opposite party
Kulappully, Shoranur,
Ottappalam Taluk – 679 522
O R D E R
By Smt. Suma. K.P, Member,
The opposite party bank had sanctioned a loan for Anand industry and the complainant herein stood as a security for the said loan. At the time of executing the security bond the complainant had deposited his document Janmam Sale deed No.645/1999 of Shoranur SRO executed by Sri Unni Ayyappan in favour of his son Sri.Sreekumar and Kraya Certificate No.991/1970 issued from Pattambi BDO land tribunal to Sri Unni Ayyappan and had also pledged 3.12 acres of coconut garden in Resurvey No.206/14 (old Survey : 202B/2A) of Ongallur-II Village in Ottappalam Taluk. Since the said industry had defaulted the loan payments the opposite party bank had filed a suit against the complainant and principle debtor before Ottappalam Sub Court as O.S.No.132/2002. The said suit was decreed in favour of the opposite party bank. The opposite party had filed an EP as 99/2013 for sale of the above mentioned property for the realization of the amount. By that time the amount was paid in an OTS scheme and the loan was closed. After closing the loan the complainant contacted the opposite party bank several times for the return of the above mentioned documents. But they had not returned the document so far. The complainant alleges that the opposite party bank is bound to return the document deposited before them as and when the loan is closed and the complainant has every right for return of those documents. Complainant further submits that his aged mother is suffering from cancer and he had to spend a lot of money for treatment expenses. If he had to avail a loan from any other banks he had to pledged the above documents for availing it. Since the opposite party bank has not returned the said documents he is not in a position to avail loan from any other bank. He further submits that the house occupied by him is also pledged before Trithala Service Co-operative bank. Since he has defaulted the payments the bank had initiated RR against him. If the deposited documents was returned by the opposite party bank he can pay the loan amount by sale of the property covered by the above document. Since the original document is not in possession he could not complete the registration process and no one is willing to purchase the property without the original document. The interest towards the loan availed from Thrithala Co-op-bank is increasing day by day and the complainant had suffered much mental agony due to that. The Thrithala Co-operative bank had also send a demand notice stating that he can avail OTS scheme as per the scheme of Ashwas 2016, if he will pay the amount on or before 31/3/2013 and thereby he can gain Rs.5,00,000/- towards that debt. Without the original documents the complainant could not even avail a loan from any other banks for the above mentioned payment. The complainant could not even obtain a possession certificate in his favour without the original documents. For the said reason he is not in a position to do any construction in the said property so as to conduct a business like poultry farm or any other business for his livelihood. Even the opposite party bank had refused to grant a loan to the complainant without the original document. Complainant alleges that the above acts of the opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. Hence he had approached before this forum seeking an order to direct the opposite party to return the documents namely Janmam Sale deed No.645/1999 of Shoranur SRO executed by Sri.Unni Ayyappan in favour of his son Sri.Sreekumar Kraya Certificate No.991/1970 issued from Pattambi BDO land tribunal to Sri.Unni Ayyappan, within a stipulated period or in the alternative if the opposite party is not able to return the documents direct them to pay Rs.10 lakhs as punitive damages along with Rs.5lakhs as compensation for the damages suffered by the complainant and Rs.5lakhs for the financial loss suffered by the complainant along with cost of this proceedings.
Complaint was admitted and the notice was issued to the opposite party for appearance. Opposite party remained absent inspite of accepting notice, hence they were called absent and set exparte.
Complainant filed chief affidavits along with documents. Ext.A1-A3 series was marked from the part of the complainant. Evidence was closed. Matter was heard.
The following issues are to be considered.
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite
party?
2. If so, what are the reliefs and cost?
ISSUES 1 & 2
We have perused the documents as well as affidavit filed by the complainant. Ext.A1 is an application issued by the complainant to the opposite party for returning the documents pledged as collateral security before the opposite party bank. From Ext.A2 it is obvious that the opposite party had admitted that the party had cleared the amount as per one time settlement and they have already withdrawn the RR and the suit against the borrowers and guarantors and they had no claims/dues pending against them. They had also admitted in Ext.A2 notice that the deeds mentioned in the complaint was handed over to their panel advocate on 20/07/2002 so as to file the suit. From Ext.A3 series it is viewed that the complainant was called upon by Thrithala Service Co-operative Bank for payment of dues as OTS Scheme as per Ashwas 2016 scheme on or before 31st March 2016. Opposite party failed to appear before the Forum inspite of accepting notice. Hence we are of the view that the complainant had proved his case before the Forum. Without returning the original documents the opposite party bank has committed gross negligence and deficiency of service on their part. Hence the complaint is allowed and we direct the opposite party
- to return the original document Janmam Sale deed No.645/1999 of Shoranur SRO executed by Sri.Unni Ayyappan in favour of his son Sri.Sreekumar.
- Kraya Certificate No.991/1970 issued from Pattambi BDO land tribunal to Sri .Unni Ayyappan
on or before 30/11/2016 failing which the opposite party will have to pay Rs.10 lakhs as punitive damages along with a compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as damages for the mental agony and financial loss suffered by the complainant along with Rs.3,000/-(Rupees Three thousand only) as cost. The aforesaid amount shall be paid within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which complainant is entitled to get 9% interest for the aforesaid amount from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of September , 2016.
Sd/-
Shiny.P.R
President
Sd/- Suma. K.P
Member
Sd/-
V.P.Anantha Narayanan
Member
A P P E N D I X
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1series - Petition dtd.20/11/2015 submitted by the complainant before the opposite party with postal receipts and A/D card
Ext.A2 - Letter dtd.22/02/2016 issued by the opposite party to the complainant.
Ext.A3 series -Letter issued by the Secretary, Thrithala Service Co-op-Bank Ltd and the Sale Officer to the complainant and his father, Mr.Unni Ayyappan (2 in nos.)
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties
Nil
Witness examined on the side of complainant
Nil
Witness examined on the side of opposite parties
Nil
Cost Allowed
Rs.3,000/- as cost.
