The complainant availed a vehicle loan of Rs.44,000/- from the respondent and bought a TVS Victor Motorcycle. At the time of availing the loan he had entrusted blank cheques signed by him to the respondent. He had also entrusted R.C. Book, Tax receipt and Duplicate key through the Young Motors, Chalakudy from where he had bought the vehicle to the respondent. The respondent had encashed the cheques bearing Nos.718101 to 718116. The balance amount of Rs.18,550/- was paid on 31.3.06 through the authorised agent of the respondent and the loan transaction had closed. After closing the transaction the complainant demanded the cheques, R.C. book, tax receipt, duplicate key, loan termination letter and NOC. It was told to send but was not received so far. The NOC and 8 cheque leaves were sent by the respondent and accepted. The remaining things were not sent. When the complainant approached the respondent to get back the R.C. book and duplicate key it was intimated that they entrusted the same with Chalakudy Young Motors. The Young Motors told that the key and other relevant documents were taken by the agent of the respondent and a register is kept by them. The non-return of duplicate key and relevant documents is a deficiency in service on the part of respondents and the complainant was caused to send a lawyer notice and there was no response from the respondent. Hence the complaint. 

            2. The counter is that it is true that the complainant availed a loan from the respondent for an amount of Rs.44,000/- in order to purchase a TVS Victor Motorcycle from Young Motors, Chalakudy. The cheque Nos.718101 to 718116 were encashed. The balance amount of Rs.18,550/- was paid by the complainant on 31.3.2006 through the authorised agent of respondent. It is untrue and denied that this respondent agreed to send the cheque Nos.718117 to 718128, Registraction Certificate, tax receipt, NOC etc. as and when demanded by the complainant.   The NOC and the cheque leaves Nos.718121 to 718128 were sent to the complainant by this respondent. The R.C. book was produced before the Forum and the complainant was accepted it. There is tax endorsement in the R.C. book and no separate tax receipt is available. If the duplicate key is not received by the complainant he had to approach the Young Motors Chalakudy. The cheque Nos.718117 to 718120 were returned as funds insufficient by the bank and were kept in the head office of the respondent Bank. If court is ordered to return the same they are ready to return it. There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent. Hence dismiss the complaint.

 

            3. The points for consideration are:

(1)   Is there any deficiency in service on the part of respondent?

(2)   If so, reliefs and costs.

 

            4. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 to P4 on the part of complainant and Ext. R1 series on the part of respondent. No oral evidence adduced by both.

 

            5. Points: The case is filed to get back the R.C. book, duplicate key, tax receipt and cheque leaves. The complainant states that at the time of availing the loan as per repayment schedule he had given cheque leaves of 28 in Nos. signed by him to the respondent. At the time of agreement of the loan he had entrusted the R.C. Book, tax receipt, duplicate key etc. to the Young Motors Chalakudy from where the complainant purchased the motorcycle and according to him the Young Motors handed over the same to the authorised agent of respondent bank. He stated that he had closed the loan transaction by paying the entire amount. The cheque Nos.718101 to 718116 were encashed by the respondent. These facts are admitted by the respondent in their counter and they stated that the transaction was closed by the complainant on 31.3.06 by paying the balance amount of Rs.18,550/-. The encashment of above mentioned cheques was also admitted by them. The only dispute is with regard to the non-delivery of R.C. book, duplicate key, tax receipt and cheque Nos.718117 to 718120.

 

            6. The case of complainant is that he had entrusted the above mentioned things to the Young Motors Chalakudy and the Young Motors handed over the same to the authorised agent of respondent Bank. When these things were not returned he enquired the same with the young Motors Chalakudy but they told that they had handed over the same to the respondent Bank. These items were not returned to the complainant so far. The R.C. book was handed over to the complainant as per direction in I.A.456/06. The other items remained undelivered. In the counter the respondent admitted that the cheque Nos.718117 to 718120 were dishonoured when presented with the Bank for collection and those were kept in the head office of the respondent Bank at Mumbai. They also stated in the counter that if the court is ordered to return the same they are ready to return the cheque leaves to the complainant. It is unfair and deficiency in service on the part of respondent in keeping the same even after the transaction was completed.  They had to return the cheque leaves at the earliest. Later the respondent produced the dishonoured cheques and marked as Ext. R1 series. The complainant is at liberty to accept the same from the Forum. In the counter the respondent also stated that there is endorsement in the RC book with regard to the payment of tax and no separate receipt is provided. It is true that there will be endorsement of payment of tax in the R.C. book. So separate receipt is not necessary. The duplicate key is also not delivered to the complainant as per the complaint. The respondent states that it will be in the possession of Young Motors Chalakudy. The Young Motors Chalakudy is not a party in the case and the complainant failed to take any steps with regard to that. In the complaint they stated that when they enquired about the duplicate key with the Young Motors, the Young Motors told that it was handed over to the respondent Bank and a register is kept by them for that purpose. The register if any kept by the Young Motors is not called for and there is no evidence before us to fix the liability. The respondent Bank denied their liability by saying that the duplicate key is with the Young Motors Chalakudy. At the same time the complainant failed to prove the same. He did not adduce oral evidence also. So we are unable to order the production of duplicate key by the respondent Bank.

 

            7. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the complainant is directed to accept the Ext. R1 series cheque leaves from the Forum and the respondent is directed to pay Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) as compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant with cost Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.