Haryana

Ambala

CC/302/2013

A.L CHOPRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

NARENDER SHARMA

09 Aug 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 302 of 2013

                                                          Date of Institution         : 20.11.2013

                                                          Date of decision   : 09.08.2017

 

Shri A.L.Chopra aged about 77 years son of Shri Fakir Chand Chopra    resident of 7-K Adarsh Nagar, Model Town, Ambala City.

……. Complainant.

 

1. Central Bank of India, S.C.O. 9, Sector 7-,Urban Estate Ambala City through its Branch Manager.
2. Shri S.K.Goel, Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Urban Estate, Ambala City.

….…. Opposite parties.

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER         

                   MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER                 

 

Present:       Sh.Narender Sharma, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh.S.B.Bakshi, counsel for OPs.

 

ORDER:

                   Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had applied for Cent Mortgage OD facility on 03.06.2008 with OP No.1 which was duly sanctioned on 25.02.2009 and availed by the complainant from 04.03.2009 to 26.12.2009 after executing security documents and completing all the formalities besides submitting original title deed of his property being equitable mortgage with OP No.1.  It has been further averred that OP No.2, Manager of OP No.1 vide letter dated 23.11.2009 asked the complainant to deposit title deed but sooner the said letter was not withdrawn as the complainant vide letters dated 25.11.2009 and 01.12.2009 intimated the OPs about depositing of title deed at the time of availing loan. OP No.2 vide letters dated 03.12.2009 and 10.12.2009 asked the complainant to complete terms and conditions of the loan but vide letter dated 14.12.2009 the complainant asked about running of OD account satisfactorily. He also wrote a letter dated 16.06.2010 to the OPs about providing of proper service. As per letter dated 06.06.2011 the title deed was recovered from the backside of the strong room. On 28.04.2012 the Ops informed about debiting of Rs.42500/- being expenses incurred on the consented registered mortgage in favour of the bank on 22.03.2010 to secure OD facility under CENT Mortgage Scheme. It has been further averred vide letter dated 02.05.2012 the complainant intimated the OPs about depositing of title deed at the time of availing loan facility and vide letter dated 09.05.2012 he further intimated about  availing of loan facility from time to time and loan was adjusted on 26.12.2009 but the Branch Manager vide letter dated 03.12.2009 asked the complainant that matter was under investigation  and the title deed was deposited with the bank for creating equitable mortgage before availing OD facility.  Vide letter dated 14.05.2012, the OP No.2 informed the complainant that he had created registered mortgage as the equitable mortgage was not created earlier and the loan account was to be debited to the party account. The complainant vide letters dated 16.05.2012 & 18.05.2012 requested the OPs for reversing the entry of Rs.42,500/- but to no avail. The complainant vide letter dated 22.05.2012 asked the OPs that registered mortgage was created for security of loan against overdraft facility. It has been further averred that vide letters dated 22.05.2012 and 29.05.2012 the complainant intimated the OPs that original sale deed was deposited with the bank and the same was lying with them but OP No.2 in order to save his skin approached the complainant to sign the registered mortgage. The amount of Rs.42,500/- was debited in the account of the complainant arbitrarily on 28.04.2012 after more than two years and the Ops have not reversed the same despite many requests. The act and conduct of OPs clearly amounts to deficiency in service. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure CX and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C29.

2.                          On notice, OPs appeared and filed their joint reply wherein several preliminary objections such as estoppal, maintainability and non-joinder of necessary parties etc. It has been further submitted that the complainant had not submitted the original title deed at the time of processing of his OD loan facility and the said facility was availed without submitting the same, therefore, it was not found in Bank’s record and recital register. The complainant had pointed out the same on 05.06.2009 when OP No.2 had joined as bank Manager. The complainant in connivance of previous bank Manager Sh.S.K.Sharma had flouted the procedure of the bank as he himself had remained member of the said organization for about 25 years and had it been not so then why the complainant executed mortgage deed dated 22.03.2010 in favour and now he is claiming refund of Rs.42,500/-.  The OD facility was got sanctioned on 25.02.2009 and the said branch Manager Sh.S.K.Sharma was to retire on 31.03.2010 therefore, show cause notice dated 15.03.2010 was issued to him and complainant but thereafter mortgage deed dated 22.03.2010 was executed in favour of bank in order to save their skin. They succeeded in throwing the original title deed in the back side of strong almirah as original title deed was never lost or misplaced. The amount of Rs.42,500/- was rightly debited to the loan account of the complainant as per rules and procedure of the bank. Other contentions made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence, the Ops have tendered affidavits Annexure RX and Annexure RY and documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R10.

3.                          During the pendency of this complaint, the complainant moved an application for producing additional evidence which was allowed vide order dated 16.05.2017 and thereafter the complainant had tendered documents Annexure C-30 to Annexure C-34. In rebuttal of additional evidence the OPs have also tendered documents Annexure R-11. After closing the rebuttal evidence the OPs have also filed an application for additional evidence which was allowed vide order dated 13.07.2017 and the Ops have tendered documents Annexure R12 and Annexure R13 on the case file but the complainant has not filed any rebuttal against the additional evidence led by the Ops.

4.                          It is not disputed that the complainant had applied for loan facility under Cent Mortgage Scheme OD facility on 03.06.2008 with Op No.1 which was sanctioned on 25.02.2009 and the availed the OD facilities from 04.03.2009 to 26.12.2009.  Before availing the above said facility, the complainant averted that he had completed all the facilities and also deposited the original title deed of his property with intention to create equitable mortgage with respondent No.1 alongwith other requisite documents required for the purpose of said loan. The opposite parties sent a letter to the complainant on 23.11.2009 and gave directions to the complainant to register mortgage deed vide Annexure C1 whereby the complainant was intimated about not depositing of title deed. After receiving the said letter, the complainant informed the opposite parties that at the time of availing of loan he had already deposited the title deed alongwith other documents with the bank and again the complainant also requested the bank for withdrawing the above said letter dated 25.11.2009. Thereafter, many correspondence have also taken place between the complainant and opposite parties.

                  

5.                          The OP has intimated to the complainant vide letter dated 23.11.2009 (Annexure C1) wherein the complainant was directed to deposit the documents immediately and also to execute mortgage deed in favour of the bank and the have also stopped the transaction of the loan besides giving directions to the complainant not to issue cheque to anyone. In the compelling circumstances the complainant had to execute mortgage deed with the condition that bank would not charge any mortgage expenses from the complainant and thereafter the complainant executed the mortgage deed on 22.03.2010. It is proved on the case file that Sh.S.K.Sharma, the then Branch Manager had written a letter dated 06.06.2011 to the complainant (Annexure C-9)  whereby it has been intimated that the title deed has been traced out behind the strong room but before tracing out the said title deed the complainant was forced to execute mortgage deed on 22.03.2010 and in lieu thereof the Ops have debited Rs.42500/- in his account after a period of two years on 28.04.2012.  

6.                In this regard the complainant approached to the OPs by writing letters and requested to refund/credit the said amount and in response to the requests of the complainant the Branch Manager had sent  a letter dated 03.03.2015 (Annexure C33) to the head office wherein it has been written that From the whole, it appears that Mr.Chopra is not at fault and debiting of his account is not justified. We, therefore, recorded for refund of Rs.42,500/- to him at the same time he would draw his case from consumer Forum.

7.                Moreover, in another letter dated 23.01.2015 the Ops have also found the case of the complainant genuine and also recommended for the refund of the debiting amount vide Annexure C32.

8.                These documents have been addressed by the Op No.1 bank to the higher authorizes for refunding the above said debited amount but it is strange vide letter dated 29.04.2015 Annexure R12 the Ops have withdrawn the letter Annexure C32 and C33 vide which they have recommended for the refund of the amount to the complainant.  In Annexure R12, the Ops have mentioned that in the above context, it may be informed that the matter has again examined at the appropriate level and decided again reviewing the decision already taken on the matter, which was conveyed to SRM, RO Chandigarh vide letter under reference.   The OPs have also informed the complainant vide letter dated 27.06.2015 (Annexure R13) about against reviewing the decision taken in letters Annexure C32 and Annexure C33.

9.                Perusal of Annexure R12 Annexure R13 reveals that as to why they have reversed the recommendation qua refunding of amount to the complainant despite the fact that the title deed submitted by him was already lying with the bank. Since at the time execution of mortgage deed dated 22.03.2010 no amount was debited in the account of the complainant and after a period of two years the bank has debited an amount of Rs.42,500/- without providing opportunity of being heard to the complainant and even in letters Annexure R12 and Annexure R13 they have also not explained the reasons of reviewing the adverse recommendation.

10.                        In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the Ops have debited Rs.42,500/- in the account of the complainant despite the fact that the bank itself was on fault as its officials had failed to maintain/kept the record intact. This Forum  takes a judicial notice to the effect that whenever equitable mortgage is being executed in favour of the bank by the loanee then certainly bank takes original title deed and in the absence of title deed, equitable mortgage is not possible.  Before sanctioning of loan the bank obtains chain of title of the proposed borrower/guarantor from their penal Advocates and in sequence thereto the penal Advocates makes the list of the chain of title in their report in the column of list of documents. The Ops have failed to place on record the copy of title report of the complainant which draws an adverse inference against the OPs. The Enquiry (Annexure R11) launched by the Higher Authorities of the Bank regarding misplacing of title deed or its tracing out is their internal matter. Moreover, the complainant would have of no benefit by withholding the title deed and later on thrown the same in strong room of the bank and even the enquiry conducted by the bank is also not binding on the complainant. In the present case it appears that the OPs are trying to shift the burden of their own wrongs on the complainant. The Ops have not stopped there rather they have gone one step further by withdrawing the Annexure C32 and Annexure C33 without giving any opportunity of being heard to the complainant and the Ops have failed to show as to why they have reversed the recommendations qua refunding of wrongly debited amount of Rs.42,500/- from the account of the complainant. Such like behavior is not expected from a financial institution, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the OP-bank has indulged in unfair trade practice and they are also deficient in providing service to the complainant and also it is proved that due to this the complainant was dragged in unwarranted litigation. Accordingly, we allow the present complaint with costs which is assessed at Rs.5000/-. The OPs are also directed to refund Rs.42,500/- (debited amount in the OD account of the complainant) alongwith interest at the same rate which the Ops were charging from the complainant qua the repayment of loan from the date of debit i.e. 28.04.2012 till its realization. The OPs are also liable to pay punitive damages to the tune of Rs.10,000/- as provided under Section 14 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act.   Since, this Forum is also a custodian of public money, therefore, Regional Manager of the Central Bank of India is directed to get an enquiry conducted to fix responsibility of the erring officials/ officers and to recover the expenses incurred by the OP for unwarranted litigation of the present complaint and also to recover Rs.42500/- alongwith interest mentioned above and  Rs.10,000/- (as punitive damage) + Rs.5,000 (cost of litigation expenses) due to their negligency within a period of 60 days from the date of receiving of copy of this order under intimation to this Forum. Assistant is directed to send the copy of this order separately to the Regional Manager of the Central Bank of India. Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on: 09.08.2017                                                                                                                                             

     (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)           (ANAMIKA GUPTA)       (D.N.ARORA)

                 Member                                   Member                           President                                                                                              District Consumer Disputes                                                                                 Redressal Forum, Ambala.