Date of Filing: 27.11.2019 Date of Disposal: 13.06.2022.
Complainant :Roshan Ali @ Sk Roshan Ali, S/o Late Abdul Khaleque, one of the partners of Galshi Rice Mill, Vill.+P.O.+P.S. Galsi, Dist. Purba Bardhaman. W.B. Pin-713406.
-VERSUS -
Opposite Party :Central Bank of India, Burdwan Branch, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Bidyanath Katra (Near Bijoy Taran), B.C. Road, Burdwan Town,
P.O.+ P.S. Burdwan, Dist. Purba Bardhaman. WB, Pin-713101.
Present : Mohammad Muizzuddeen -Hon’ble President.
: Mrs. Lipika Ghosh - Hon’ble Member.
Appeared for the Complainant : Mr. Mosihur Rahaman Mallick Ld. Advocate.
Appeared for the Opposite Party : Mr. Santimoy Roy Ld. Advocate.
FINAL ORDER
On 27.11.2019 the complainant has lodged this complaint u/S 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986 against the OP.
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he along with his father and brothers installed a Rice Mill at Galsi, Dist. Purba Bardhaman and they took a cash-credit loan of Rs.85, 00,000/-(Rupees Eighty Five Lakhs) in the year 1972 from the OP Bank and the Cash Credit Account No. is 1199121179 which was sanctioned against depositing secured assets i.e depositing their Title Deeds of Land and now they are all died. After the death of all the borrowers, their legal representatives/heirs had been substituted by the said bank in their place, but those deceased borrowers could not repay the installments from time to time and the substituted legal heirs themselves formed partnership for running their Rice Mill business. In their chequered life, they also could not able to run the said business smoothly and it was not possible for them to pay the installments time to time. Eventually, the dues in NPA account, the liability stands Rs. 1, 76, 35,523/-(Rupees One Crore Seventy Six Lakhs Thirty Five Thousand Five Hundred Twenty Three only). Thereafter, the rice mill business was totally closed. Nobody of the partners came to face the accrued liability except the complainant and other partners fully tried to avoid their liabilities. Thereafter the OP under order of the concerned District Magistrate took physical possession of the said Rice Mill u/S 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 and then the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the complainant only himself compelled to comply with the order of Rs.10 Lakh (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) within the prescribed time under extreme paucity of funds.
He further stated that in spite of non-co-operation of other partners, the complainant only on the basis of respect and honour of the family with his best efforts and attempts as well as incurring all the liabilities and responsibilities upon him without help of other partners took and accepted the benefits of one time settlement scheme, offered under Mission Recovery Scheme, 2018. The settlement arrived at Rs. 54, 00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Four Lakh) out of all outstanding loan. Then the complainant without non co-operation fully reimbursed the settled amount after selling his landed property. The complainant orally requested for returning their secured assets i.e. deposited Title Deeds and lastly a letter of notice was also sent to the OP for returning the same but fails. The cause of action arose on 08.10.2019 when the OP received the letter of notice.
Upon this background, the complainant lodged this case for deficiency in service with negligence and prayed for directing the OP to return or deliver the secured assets i.e all the deposited Title Deeds against the said loan to the complainant with a direction to the OP to issue certificate of reimbursement in the name of the complainant. He further prayed for compensation of Rs.1, 000/- for mental harassment along with litigation cost of Rs.2, 000/-.
On 06.11.2020 the OP appeared through Vokalatnama and on 26.02.2021 as the OP did not file W/V since 06.11.2020, the time for filing W/V was rejected and the case was fixed for evidence by the complainant. On 16.04.2021 the complainant filed evidence-on-affidavit. On 10.12.2021 the Ld. Advocate for the OP submitted that he could not adduce any evidence nor give any questionnaire to the evidence of the complainant but on 05.01.2022 he filed W/V. The case was fixed for argument. On the date of argument i.e on 17.05.2022 the OP did not appear and the argument was heard from the side of the complainant.
In the W/V the OP denied the material allegations and submitted that the complainant only demanded to return the deposited Title Deeds and as he was not authorized to take back the same, it was not possible for the OP to return the same as because the loan was taken by several persons securing the said documents in their names. The OP has no intention to keep the secured documents under its custody and the OP will return the same immediately to the complainant, if he produces the authorization from the other loanees to receive the same.
Upon this background, he prayed for dismissal of the case.
Decision with Reasons.
On perusal of the complaint, W/V and the Xerox copies of the documents, it is clear that the complainant has fully reimbursed the settlement amount arrived at under Mission Recovery Scheme, 2018 and the OP has not denied the same. It is also clear from the materials on record that the loan was taken by several persons of the family including the complainant himself as partners of the Rice Mill in question. Therefore, the claim of the complainant that he is unemployed has no basis at all and the loan was taken by depositing the secured assets i.e. various Title Deeds of those persons. The complainant has claimed that all of them i.e all the partners except the complainant have expired but no document is forthcoming from the side of the complainant to show that they have already expired. But it is the fact that the secured assets i.e the Title Deeds were in the names of those persons who took loan and including the Title Deeds in the name of the complainant also. According to the case of the OP, the OP is ready to deliver those Title Deeds after production of authorization of all other partners or legal heirs/representatives for returning the Title Deeds of them. It is not the case of the complainant that the OP did not want to return the Title Deeds of the complainant , on the other hand, the OP bank issued a letter dt. 25.09.2018 clearly admitting that the Cash Credit Account Number in question stood adjusted on date on compromise settlement under One Time Settlement Scheme, offered under our Mission Recovery Scheme, 2018 and there is no outstanding in their books of records against the said loan account.
It is quite natural in rules and regulations that the documents must be returned to the person in whose name it stands. Accordingly, when the OP is ready to deliver the Title Deeds of several persons to the complainant on production of authorization of them or their legal representatives, it is the duty of the complainant to produce the same on getting back the Title Deeds and he is entitled to get his Title Deeds , if any, deposited to the OP.
Under the above facts and circumstances, we do not find any such deficiency of service or negligence on the part of the complainant.
The complainant may get the secured assets i.e all the Title Deeds on production of authorization, as it appears in this case.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the Consumer Complaint No. 176/2019 be and the same is dismissed on merit, in view of the above made observations.
Let a copy of this order be given to the parties on free of cost.
Dictated & corrected by me.
President
D.C.D.R.C , Purba Bardhaman.
Member President
D.C.D.R.C , Purba Bardhaman. D.C.D.R.C , Purba Bardhaman.
