Adv. For the Complainant: - Sri P.K.Mishra and Others
Adv. For O.P :- Sri A.K.Sarangi
Date of filing of the Case :- 11.12.2017
Date of Order :- 30.12.2019
JUDGMENT
Sri A.K.Purohit, President
1. The case of the complainant is that, the father of the complainant late Bhodev Dandsena was a guarantor for the loan account of O.P.No.2 financed by the O.P.No.2 vide loan account No. 11342144249. To the said loan account the father of the complainant mortgaged his landed property measuring an area of Ac. 0.105 dec. and had deposited the original land documents before the O.P. No. 1 The father of the complainant died on dated 1.9.1997. As per the settlement before the National Lok Adalat held on dated 24.11.2013 the complainant and the O.P.2 jointly repaid the settled loan amount of Rs. 48,408/- and there is no outstanding over the said loan account. After repayment of the loan amount the complainant being the son and legal heir of late Bhodev Dandsena has requested the O.P. No. 1 several times for return of the original mortgaged documents but the same was not returned by the O.P. 1 on the grounds that the documents are not traceable. Lastly the complainant send a notice for the said purpose on dated 25.10.17 but the O.P.1 has not taken any step for return of the same. Hence the complaint.
2. Although O.P.No.1 has appeared in this case he did not chose to file the written version which shows that the O.P.1 has admitted the case of the complainant. The O.P.2 neither appears nor has filed his written version. Both the O.Ps. are set experte vide order dated 19.7.18.
3. This being a case of the year 2017, the case has been disposed of on perusal of the material available on record.
4. Perused the complaint petition and documentary evidence filed by the complainant. It is evident from the documents filed by the complainant that, the loan account No. 11342144249 of O.P.2 was settled in the National Lok Adalat and the settled amount of Rs. 48,408/- has already been repaid to the O.P.1 bank. It is also evident from the letter of the O.P.1 dated 9.7.2015 that the landed property of Bhodev Dandsena measuring an area of Ac. 0.105 dec was mortgaged for the said loan account and title documents were deposited by late Bhodev Dandsena and the Bank has no charge over the said property. It is also seen from the death certificate and the legal heir certificate filed by the complainant that, Bhodev Dandsena was died on dated 1.9.1997 and the complainant is one of the legal heir of late Bhodev Dandsena. It is also seen from the letter dated 12.2.15 issued by the O.P.1 that there is no outstanding with respect to the loan account of Artatran Thakur vide loan account No. 11342144249.
5. With these evidence available on record it is believed that the O.P. 1 Bank has extended the loan on deposit of the title documents, and hence it is the bound down duty of the bank to keep the said documents in safe custody and after repayment of the loan amount the bank is duty bound to return the original documents. Hence the plea taken by the bank in his letter that the documents are not traceable cannot be said to be a valid grounds for non returning of the title documents. Since there is no outstanding against the loan amount and the complainant having no other liability, the non return of the documents of the complainant amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.No.1. In this context it is relevant to refer to a decision of the Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2017( 4 ) CPR 759 ( NC ) wherein the Hon’ble commission held that, “ 4. XXXXXXXXXXX The original title documents of immovable property are valuable security as is evident from the fact that the bank itself extended loan to the son of the complainant on deposit of the said documents. An equitable mortgage of the said property was created in favour of the appellant bank by deposit of the aforesaid original title documents. The appellant bank therefore ought to have kept the said original documents in safe custody and returned them to the complainant as soon as the loan was repaid. The bank was clearly deficient in rendering services to the complainant by not keeping the aforesaid valuable security in safe custody and not returning the same to the complainant even on repayment of the loan.”
6. With this position of law and material available on record it is concluded that the O.P. 1 is deficient in rendering service. Hence ordered.
ORDER
The O.P. 1 is directed to return the original title documents deposited by Bhodev Dandsena in connection with loan A/C. No. 11342144249 in the name of O.P.2 to the complainant immediately on production of succession certificate by the complainant. Further the O.P.1 is directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- ( ten thousands ) to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Accordingly the case is disposed of.
Pronounced in the open forum to-day the 30th day of December 2019.
Sd/- Sd/-
(S.Rath) (A.K.Purohit)
MEMBER. PRESIDENT
