IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 11th day of Feburary, 2013.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C.No. 101/2012 (Filed on 18.05.2012)
Between:
V. Soman,
Souparnika Veedu,
(Chaluparamannil)
Mangaram, Konni. … Complainant.
And:
1. Chief General Manager,
Kerala State Co-operative Bank,
Co-Bank Towers, Palayam,
Thiruvananthapuram.
2. Branch Manager,
Vilavinal Raj Towers,
College Road, Pathanamthitta. … Opposite parties.
O R D E R
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):
The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. The complainant’s case is that he had availed a loan of Rs. 7,50,000 from the 2nd opposite party during July 2000. In connection with the said loan, he had deposited the settlement deed No.1540/96 of SRO, Konni in his name and the sale deed No.998/83 of SRO, Konni is the name of the complainant and his wife. Thereafter he had closed the said loan account on 27.09.2011 by paying Rs. 1,47,733 as final payment under one time settlement scheme of the opposite parties though they demanded excess money for closing the loan. On closing the said loan account, opposite parties returned all the documents deposited by him except the sale deed No.998/83 and the 1st and 2nd pages of sale deed No. 3640/81 of SRO, Konni, the prior title deed of the sale deed No.998/83. Therefore, the complainant asked for the return of the missing documents. At that time, opposite parties assured that it will be returned after making an enquiry with the head office. But so far the above said documents were not returned by the opposite parties in spite of the complainant’s repeated request. In the absence of the said documents, the complainant is not in a position to hypothecate the said properties and also he is not in a position to dispose the said properties for a better and reasonable price. The non return of the said document is a clear deficiency in service which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant and the opposite parties are liable for the same. Hence this complaint for an order directing the opposite parties for the return of the said documents or in the alternative for an order directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs. 2,50,000 as compensation along with cost of Rs. 50,000 for the mental agony and other losses sustained to the complainant.
3. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed a common version with the following main contentions: Opposite parties admitted the entire transaction with the complainant including the receipt of the sale deed No.998/83 and settlement deed No.1540/96 both of the Sub Registrar’s Office, Konni. The allegations regarding the collection of excess money is false and they have collected only the actual dues of the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement and as per the prevailing rules.
4. According to the opposite parties, the complainant had received back his documents pledged with the bank on 27.09.2011 after closing the loan account. At that time, it was found that the first 2 pages of sale deed No.998/83 is missing. It could not be traced out. Finally, the then manager had issued a certificate stating that the first and second pages of the document No. 998/83 were lost from the custody of the bank and it was accepted by the petitioner and he had no grievance still the filing of the complaint. This complaint was filed after a lapse of many months. The loss of 2 pages of the document No.998/83 is admitted by the opposite parties. The complainant demanded only the return of the 1st two pages of document of 998/83. A certificate showing the missing of two pages of the said document was also given to the complainant and the said certificate is a valid document. The opposite parties also promised to give a certified copy of the said deed at the expense of the opposite parties. It was also accepted by the complainant. This being the position, the allegation of deficiency of service is baseless and the complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs as prayed for in the complaint as the opposite party has not committed any deficiency of service to the complainant.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
6. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral deposition of PW1, DW1 and Exts.A1 to A7 and B1 to B8. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.
7. The Point:- The complainant’s allegation is that in connection with the loan transaction, the complainant had pledged the titled deeds of the complainant and his wife with the opposite parties, Later, the loan was closed by paying the entire dues. But the opposite parties has not returned the sale deed No.998/83 of SRO, Konni and the 1st 2 pages of sale deed No.3640/81 of SRO, Konni which is prior title deed of the sale deed No.998/83 of SRO, Konni. The non return of the said documents by the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service which caused the complainant much difficulties by way of monitory loss and mental agony and hence the opposite parties are liable to the complainant and hence the complainant prays for allowing the complaint.
8. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant filed a proof affidavit along with certain documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A7. Ext.A1 is the notice dated 02.06.2005 issued by the opposite party in the name of Smt. E.K. Mallika in connection with the recovery proceedings of the complainants loan dues. Ext.A2 is the certified copy of sale deed No.998/83 of SRO, Konni in the name of the complainant’s wife. Ext.A3 is the page No.3 and 4 of sale deed No.3640/81 of SRO, Konni. Ext. A4 is the photocopy of the notice dated 11.05.2012 issued by the complainant to the first and second opposite parties. Exts. A5 and A5(a) are the postal receipts of Ext. A4. Exts. A6 and A6(a) are the postal acknowledgment cards of Ext. A4. Ext. A7 is the photocopy of the certificate dated 27.09.2011 issued by the second opposite party certifying the loss of first and second pages of deed No. 998/1983.
9. On the other hand, the contention of the opposite parties is that in connection with the loan transaction, the complainant had deposited sale deed No. 998/1983 and settlement deed No. 1540/1996 both from SRO, Konni. After closing the loan, the complainant had received back his documents pledged with the bank on 27.09.2011 and at that time it was found that the first 2 pages of sale deed No. 998/1983 were missing and it could not be traced out. Therefore, the second opposite party issued a certificate stating that the first 2 pages of the document No. 998/1983 were lost from the custody of the bank and it was accepted by the complainant and he had no grievance in this regard till the filing of this complaint. These facts were also endorsed in the equitable mortgage register. The complainant had no case of missing of any documents other than the 2 pages of sale deed No. 998/1983. This was admitted and the certificate to that effect was also given to the complainant. Opposite parties also promised to obtain and give a certified copy of the sale deed No. 998/1983 at the expense of the bank and the said promise was also accepted by the complainant. This being the facts, the complainant purposely made this complaint after a lapse of many months with ulterior motive alleging the loss of certain other documents which are not submitted to the bank. With the above contentions, opposite parties prays for the dismissal of the complaint as they have not committed any deficiency in service.
10. In order to prove the case of the opposite parties, second opposite party filed proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with certain documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, he was examined DW1 and documents produced by the opposite parties were marked as Exts. B1 to B8. Out of the exhibits, Exts. B1, B1(a), B2 and B3 were marked through PW1 and the other documents are marked through DW1. Ext. B1 is the letter dated 26.07.2000 from the complainant and his wife to the second opposite party. Ext. B1(a) is the letter dated 26.07.2000 sent by the complainant to the second opposite party. Ext. B2 is the loan sanction letter dated 25.07.2000 issued by the second opposite party in the name of the complainant. Ext. B3 is the certified copy of the page No. 50 of the equitable mortgage register in respect of the complainant’s loan transaction. Ext. B4 is the agreement dated 28.07.2000 executed between the complainant and the opposite parties in respect of the complainant’s loan transaction. Ext. B5 is the extract of the statement of account of the complainant’s loan transaction. Ext. B6 series are the copies of notices issued by the second opposite party in the name of the complainant in connection with the recovery proceedings of the complainant’s loan dues. Ext. B7 is the copy of the simple interest calculation sheet in respect of the complainant’s loan. Ext. B8 is another copy of Ext. A7.
11. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record and found that the parties have no dispute with the loan transaction and the closing of the loan account. The only dispute is with regard to the non-return of the title deeds deposited by the complainant. According to the complainant, opposite parties did not returned the original of sale deed No. 998/1983 of SRO, Konni and the first 2 pages of its immediate prior title deed i.e., sale deed No. 3640/1981 of SRO, Konni. According to the opposite parties, they have not received the sale deed No. 3640/1981 of SRO, Konni and at the same time they admitted the receipt of sale deed No. 998/1983 of SRO, Konni and it is further admitted the missing of the first 2 pages of the said document.
12. On a perusal of the entire records produced by the parties, there is no evidence to show that the complainant had submitted sale deed No. 3640/1981 of SRO, Konni to the opposite parties at any stage of the transaction in question. So we are not inclined to accept the contention of the complainant that they have submitted the said document to the opposite parties. Further it is seen from Ext. A7 that the opposite parties had issued a certificate to the complainant showing that the first 2 pages of sale deed No. 998/1983 of SRO, Konni was lost from the possession of the opposite parties. The certificate was issued on 27.09.2011. At the same time, it is also seen from Ext. B3 that the complainant had acknowledged the receipt of settlement deed No. 1540/1996 and its connected documents and sale deed No. 998/1983 and its connected documents except pages 1 and 2 of the sale deed No. 998/1983 from the opposite parties on 27.09.2011. Exts. A7 and Ext. B3 shows that all the documents pertaining to the loan transactions were collected by the complainant from the opposite parties on 27.09.2011. Though the documents were collected on 27.09.2011, the complainant has not raised any objection regarding the non-return of the title deeds as alleged in the complaint for about 8 months i.e. till 11.05.2012, the date of Ext. A4 notice. Since the signature of the complainant seen in Ext. B3 is admitted by the complainant, he could not go beyond the entries made just above the said signature. If the complainant’s allegations are genuine, what prevented him from raising the objection of the non-receipt of the document then and there? This leads to the presumption that the allegations of the complainant as such is not believable. However, the missing of the first 2 pages of the document No. 998/1983 of SRO, Konni is a fact which is also admitted by the opposite parties. It is no doubt the said missing will cause some inconveniences to the complainant in future. The said inconveniences that might have been caused to the complainant is solely due to the irresponsibility of the opposite parties and the said irresponsibility is a clear deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties. Therefore, the opposite parties are liable for the same and hence this complaint can be allowed with modifications:
13. In the result, this complaint is allowed with modifications, thereby the opposite parties are directed to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000 (Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation along with cost of Rs. 1,000 (Rupees One thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to realize the whole amount with 10% interest from today till the realization of the whole amount.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 11th day of February, 2013.
(Sd/-)
Jacob Stephen,
(President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : V. Soman.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Notice dated 02.06.2005 issued by the opposite party in
the name of Smt. E.K. Mallika.
A2 : Certified copy of sale deed No.998/83 of SRO, Konni in
the name of the complainant’s wife.
A3 : Page No.3 and 4 of sale deed No.3640/81 of SRO,
Konni.
A4 : Photocopy of the notice dated 11.05.2012 issued by
the complainant to the first and second opposite
parties.
A5 and A5(a) : Postal receipts of Ext. A4.
A6 and A6(a) : Postal acknowledgment cards of Ext. A4.
A7 : Photocopy of the certificate dated 27.09.2011 issued
by the second opposite party certifying the loss of first
and second pages of deed No. 998/1983.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:
DW1 : S. Viswanathamallan.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:
B1 : Letter dated 26.07.2000 from the complainant and his
wife to the second opposite party.
B1(a): Letter dated 26.07.2000 sent by the complainant to
the second opposite party.
B2 : Loan sanction letter dated 25.07.2000 issued by the
second opposite party in the name of the complainant.
B3 : Certified copy of the page No. 50 of the equitable
mortgage register.
B4 : Agreement dated 28.07.2000 executed between the
complainant and the opposite parties.
B5 : Extract of the statement of account of the
complainant’s loan transaction.
B6 series : Copies of notices issued by the second opposite party
in the name of the complainant.
B7 : Copy of the simple interest calculation sheet in respect
of the complainant’s loan.
B8 : Copy of Ext. A7.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent
Copy to:- (1) V. Soman, Souparnika Veedu, (Chaluparamannil)
Mangaram, Konni.
(2) Chief General Manager, Kerala State Co-operative
Bank, Co-Bank Towers, Palayam,
Thiruvananthapuram.
(3) Branch Manager, Vilavinal Raj Towers,
College Road, Pathanamthitta.
(4) The Stock File.
