BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PONDICHERRY
C.C.No.43/2015
Dated this the 5th day of October 2017
(Date of Institution:19.06.2015)
Beena Rani, wife of Satheesh Kumar
No.11, "Beena Nivas", Moovendar Street
Mullai Nagar Extension, Orleanpet,
Pondicherry – 605 001.
… Complainant
Vs
1. Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd (HDFC)
rep. by Authorised Signatory
Ramon House, HT Parekh Marg,
No.169, Bacbay Reclamation, Churchgate,
Mumbai – 400 020.
2. Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd (HDFC)
rep. by Authorised Signatory
Second Floor, ITC Centre,
No.760, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.
3. Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd (HDFC)
rep. by Authorised Signatory
No.3, Villianur Main Road, Natesan Nagar,
Pondicherry – 605 005.
… Opposite parties
BEFORE:
THIRU. A. ASOKAN, B.A., B.L.,
PRESIDENT
THIRU V.V. STEEPHEN, B.A., LL.B.,
MEMBER
TMT. D. KAVITHA, B.A., LL.B.,
MEMBER
FOR THE COMPLAINANT : Thiru M. Lakshmi Narasimhan, Advocate
FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY : Thiru. U. Mohan Ilayaraja, Advocate
O R D E R
(By Thiru. A. ASOKAN, President)
This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.17,70,000/- as compensation for losses and damages with internet at 18% per annum from the date of complaint (10.6.2015) till full quits and to pay a cost of Rs.10,000/-.
2. The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant availed Home Loan of Rs.5.00 lakhs from the opposite parties on 26.07.2001 to be repaid by Equated Monthly Instalments.. The said loan was secured by deposit of title deeds and encumbrance certificate and she was promptly paying the instalments. The complainant stated that she had another loan of Rs.10,75,000/- on 26.08.2009 by deposit of title deeds as already deposited in the previous loan and periodically paid sums for both loans and fully paid and discharged the first loan on 28.12.2010 and continued to pay the EMIs for second loan. The complainant further stated that her elder sister Shyamala Devi requested money to purchase a property in Kerala. Since the complainant was not having such money, she had stated her readiness to sign papers by undertaking to sign Guarantee for requisite loan by her elder sister for which, her elder sister required original title deed of complainant's property. Since the original title deed is with the opposite parties, the complainant and her sister were planned to discharge the loan availed by the complainant. Hence, the complainant's elder sister gave money to discharge the loan. The complainant approached the officials of OP3 to return of original documents for which, they have assured that the loan documents would be returned at once or within one month of full discharge of loan. The complainant's elder sister had given a sum of Rs.1,00,639/- and Rs.2,07,811/- and the complainant paid the said sums in lump sum on 21.11.2013 and 4.7.2014 respectively and closed the loan on 4.7.2014. The opposite parties received the payments by issue of letter dated 4.7.2014 on intimation that security on said property would continue until Release Certificate is issued by the Opposite Parties. The complainant was meeting the employees of opposite parties for said certificate and return of title deeds. Inspite of several personal calls and visits, the OPs could not return the original documents including the original title deed dated 13.09.2000. Hence, the complainant sent E-Mail dated 23.09.2014 to all the opposite parties. On 29.01.2015 the opposite parties issued two separate letters stating that the loans are paid in full and the HDFC has no claim on specified property. The said letters are wrong because OPs had omitted any reference to papers in Property as are in its custody and deposit as security for referred loans. Hence, the complainant on 2.3.2015 and 06.04.2015 sent letters to Banking Ombudsman in Reserve Bank of India with copies marked to OPs. The OP3 sent a letter on 04.05.2015 alleging that her proper documents are inadvertently misplaced and are being traced and that HDFC would forward them on retrieving and locating. Such act of the OPs amounts to negligence in their duties and services to customer and the same caused lots of physical and mental tensions and worries to the complainant and her family members and also the family members of her elder sister. Hence, this complaint.
3. The reply version filed by the opposite parties briefly discloses the following:
These Opposite parties stated that they are involved in the business of lending under various heads including that of housing loans. The present complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable either on Law or on facts. The respondent further submits that as per the Loan Agreement dated 26.07.2001, in Loan Account No- 894021, one Mr. K. Sathishkumar has approached for housing loan and has availed the same and he had made the complainant as a co-applicant and the said Sathishkumar had submitted all the documents and the cheque was issued in favour of the said Mr. K. Sathishkumar and hence Mr. K. Sathishkumar alone is having the right to sue or file any complaint with regard to the Loan Account No-894024. Hence this petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The opposite parties further stated that the original sale deed dated 13.09.2000 bearing documents No.4318/2000 was kept as collateral security with the second opposite party by the complainant on 26.07.2001 and hence the cause of action had arisen on 26.07.2001. Section 24 – A(1) of the Consumer Protection Act clearly stipulate that “The District Forum, State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within Two Years from the date on which cause of action has arisen” and Section 24-A(2) stipulates that “ No complaint shall be entertained unless the Nation Commission, State Commission or the District Forum as the case may be records its reasons for condoning the delay”, While this being the statutory provision the complainant had not filed any petition to condone the delay to file the present complaint. As per the loan agreement dated 26.07.2001 in loan account No.894024 the loan was sanctioned by the 2nd opposite party and the necessary formalities were done at Madras and further as per the clause 10.3 of the said loan agreement the 1st and 2nd opposite party is a mis-joinder of party to the present complaint thus there is no territorial jurisdiction to try this complaint. These OPs stated that the complainant had approached the opposite parties to return the original documents and that the opposite parties clearly intimated that the original documents pertaining to loan account No-894024 was misplaced and all the efforts of the M/s HDFC Limited in tracing the original documents ended in vain. The procedures contemplated in the above Para of this Counter Statement are sufficient to apply for Transfer of Name/Patta and to obtain Electricity Service in the name of the complainant and nobody can insist on the original sale deed when the above said documents are filed before the concerned authorities. Mere loss of documents will not affect the Title to the properties and claiming exorbitant compensation of Rs.17,70,000/- without establishing by any documentary evidences. The complaint is filed with ulterior motive and malafide intention to cause harassment and prejudice to the opposite parties which is a company of long standing and high repute and as a ruse to extract money without just cause or valid reason. Further stated that this Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain, try and adjudicate the present complainant. The complainant has raised issues which involve questions of facts as well as law and it necessarily requires deposition of evidence and trials and can be appropriately done only by a civil court. Hence the proper forum to agitate the alleged grievance is before the civil court and proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act envisage a summary procedure of complainants of simple nature and the complicated questions of law and facts can be decided only by a civil court.
4. The rejoinder filed by the complainant for the reply version filed by the opposite parities discloses the following:
The complainant denied all the allegations made by the opposite parties in the reply version and stated that the opposite parties had not disowned Beena Rani / complainant as borrower but had in fact received all moneys from her. The complainant was alone in communication / correspondence / contacts with OPs for all purposes of payments and all queries relating to said loan. OPs had received demand for original deed from Beena Rani / complainant and had replied only to her without any details on her rights to get back her deed. Letter dated 4.5.2012 sent by OPs is addressed to complainant and admits her right for said deed by acceptance to forward the same to her. Hence, the complainant is the borrower in all rights and liabilities for borrower under loan agreement. Further stated that the loan agreement is between the Borrower / Complainant and HDFC / 3rd OP at Pondicherry. The cheques, No Due Certificate" were given to the complainant at Pondicherry. OPs letter on assurances to return and for loss of original deed are sent from OP3 at Pondicherry to complainant's residence at Pondicherry. All cause of actions arose only at Pondicherry and therefore, the complaint is filed within the territorial jurisdiction of Pondicherry. Further stated that missing or non-tracing of deeds is not a valid reason or justification for non-return of original deed. The complainant further stated that the lost original sale deed is in the name of Beena Rani, the complainant as purchaser and she had only submitted the said original deed as security for the loan and the same was also accepted as security for the loan because she is the borrower in liability to discharge her sale deed. With regard to the allegation of barred by limitation, the complainant stated that the loans were discharged only on 04.07.2014. The complaint is filed on 08.06.2015. Hence, the complaint is filed within the period of limitation. Hence, the complainant prayed to pass orders as prayed in the complaint.
5. The additional reply version filed by the opposite parties are as follows:
The present rejoinder to the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable either on Law or on facts. The various allegations and contentions stated in the rejoinder are incorrect and the complainant herein had approached this Hon’ble forum with unclean hands by suppression of various material facts. The opposite parties humbly pray this Hon’ble Forum to read and deem all the contents of Reply Version filed by the opposite parties in the above complaint as part and parcel of this additional reply version. The opposite parties submit that the complainant with an afterthought manner after receiving the reply version of the opposite parties and invented new facts and submissions which is void in the eye of law. The opposite parties further stated that as per the Loan Agreement dated: 26.07.2001, in Loan Account No- 894021, one Mr. K. Sathishkumar has approached for housing loan and has availed the same and he had made the complainant as a co-applicant and the said Sathishkumar had submitted all the documents and the cheque was issued in favour of the said Mr. K. Sathishkumar and hence Mr. K. Sathishkumar alone is having the right to sue or file any complaint with regard to the Loan Account No-894024. Hence this petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The said Mr. K. Sathishkumar is having the sole right to redeem the deeds or whatsoever. The opposite parties further stated that Terms and Conditions in Page 6 of the loan agreement in Article 10.4 states that the service of notice is only at Mumbai. The opposite parties further stated that as per the loan agreement dated 26.07.2001 in loan account No.894024 the loan was sanctioned by the 2nd opposite party and the necessary formalities were done at Madras and further as per the clause 10.3 of the said loan agreement the 1st and 2nd (Mumbai & Chennai are the necessary parties therefore the 3rd opposite party is a mis-joinder of party to the present complaint thus there is no territorial jurisdiction to try this complaint. The opposite parties stated that no specific jurisdiction plea has been taken by the complainant at the stage of filing the complainant and thus the subsequent contrary plea cannot be admitted after filing the complaint which will put the opposite parties into great loss and much hardship. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
6. On the side of complainant, the complainant Beena Rani was examined as CW1 and Exs.C1 to C16 were marked through her. One Shiyamala Devi was examined as CW2 and marked Exs.C17 and C18. On the side of opposite parties, there was no evidence adduced and no documents were marked.
7. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION:
- Whether the complainant is a Consumer?
- Whether the OPs have attributed any negligent act leading to deficiency in service to the complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?
8. POINT No.1 :
The complainant and her husband Sathish Kumar had jointly availed a home loan of Rs.5.00 lakhs on 26.07.2001 vide Ex.C1 and also Resident Home Ext. Loan of Rs.10,75,000/- on 26.08.2009 vide Ex.C3 from the opposite parties by giving their property vide Ex.C2 as collateral security to repay the same by Equated Monthly Instalments. Hence, the complainant is a consumer for the opposite parties as per Sec. 2(1) (d) (ii) and 2 (1) (o) of the Consumer Protection Act.
9. POINT No.2:
It is submitted by the complainant that she availed home loans from the opposite parties on two occasion i.e Rs.5,00,000 and Rs.10,75,000 on 26.07.2001 and 26.08.2009 respectively vide Exs.C1 and C3 by deposit of title deeds including original sale deed 13.09.2000 vide Ex.C2. On 28.10.2010 the complainant paid a sum of Rs.3,56,328/- with interest towards full repayment of loan dated 26.07.2001 vide Ex.C5 for the first loan. On 21.11.2013 the complainant paid a sum of Rs.1,00,639/- with interest towards part prepayment of second loan vide Ex.C6, on 07.05.2014 a sum of Rs.1,25,242/- with interest towards part prepayment of second loan vide Ex.C8 and on 04.07.2014 a sum of Rs.2,07,811/- with interest towards full prepayment for second loan vide Ex. C7. The OP also given no due certificate on 29.1.2015 vide Ex.C9. Thus, both the loans were fully paid and discharged by the complainant. The complainant alleged that in order to extend helping hand to her sister Shiyamala Devi for purchase of a plot at Kerala, the complainant assured her sister to give her title deed to enable her to get loan for purchase of the said property by giving complainant's property as security. For that purpose, she required the original title deed Ex.C2 which was taken by the Opposite Parties as security for the above loan granted by them. The complainant further alleged that the inspite of her repeated requests by way of personal visits, the opposite parties did not return the said original title deed Ex.C2. The opposite parties dragged on the complainant by not returning the original title deed Ex.C2. Aggrieved by the same, the complainant had sent letters to Banking Ombudsman in RBI respectively on 02.03.2015 and 06.04.2015 with copy marked to OPs vide Exs.C10 and C13. Thereafter OP3 had sent a letter dated 04.05.2015 vide Ex.C15 to the complainant alleging that property documents are inadvertently misplaced and are being traced and that HDFC would forward them on retrieving and locating. Due to the above negligent act of OPs, the complainant and her family members suffered loss and mental agony. The complainant further alleged that the lost original sale deed is in name of complaint and she had only submitted the same as security for loan at Pondicherry and the OPs also accepted the same as security. The complainant had paid all dues at Pondicherry. Hence, she filed this complaint before this Forum at Pondicherry.
10. On the other hand, the OPs submitted that the loan was availed by one K. Sathish Kumar in which the complainant is a co- applicant, hence the said K. Sathish kumar alone is having the right to sue or file any complaint. Hence this petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Further alleged that the original sale deed 13.09.2000 was kept as collateral security with the OP on 26.02.2001. As per section 24- A (1) of Consumer Protection Act, a complaint has to be filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. Hence the complaint is barred by limitations. Further submitted that the loan was sanctioned by OP2 and necessary formalities were done at Madras and therefore OP3 is a mis-joinder of party to the complaint and this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this complaint. The opposite parties further alleged that they have intimated the misplace of original documents to the complainant and that they would apply for certified copy of the same and would take steps in filing the missing complaint before the police apart from effecting paper publication and that the above procedures are sufficient to apply for transfer of Name / Patta and to obtain Electricity Service and nobody can insist on the original sale deed when the above said documents are filed before the concerned authorities. Further alleged that mere loss of documents will not affect the title to the properties and the complainant is claiming exorbitant compensation. In order to harass the opposite parties and with malafide intention, the complainant has filed this complaint.
11. This Forum carefully perused the complaint and rejoinder and reply version, documents and evidences and upon the facts and circumstances of the case. The opposite parties alleged that the loan was availed by complainant's husband Sathish Kumar and the complainant is a co-applicant. The present complaint is not filed by the applicant of the loan i.e. the said Sathishkumar, hence, the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. Further alleged that the loans were sanctioned by the second opposite party and the formalities were done at Chennai and as per clause 10.3 of Loan Agreement, the 1st and 2nd opposite parties are the necessary parties and therefore, the 3rd opposite party is a mis-joinder of party to the present complaint. This Forum carefully perused the loan documents executed by the complainant as well as her husband. In the Exs.C1 and C3 Home Loan Agreements, it is found that the name of the borrower is mentioned as Mr. Satheesh Kumar K and Mrs. Beena Rani N. Nowhere, it is mentioned that the complainant Beena Rani is a co-applicant. Further, on perusal of Ex.C2, the sale deed which was given as a document for security, also stands in the name of complainant Beena Rani alone. Moreover, on perusal of Ex.C16, the statement of accounts issued by State Bank of India, Puducherry, the EMI was also deducted from the account of the complainant alone. On perusal of Ex.C9, the No Due Certificate issued by the opposite parties, it is clearly mentioned that "Mr. Satheesh Kumar K and Mrs. Beena Rani N. to whom Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited (HDFC) has granted a HOME EXTENSION LOAN of Rs.10,75,000 in terms of the Loan Agreement dated 26-AUG-2009 has / have paid the same in full with all dues and that no amount is now due from him / her / them towards or in respect of the said loan". Further, on perusal of Ex.C3, it has been executed by the complainant and her husband with the opposite parties in the premises of OP3 Bank at Pondicherry. Hence, from the above facts, it is clear that the complainant is also the borrower of the loan and hence, she is entitled to file the complaint. Therefore, the allegation that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party and the arraying the OP3 as 3rd Opposite Party in the complaint is a mis-joinder of party to the proceedings cannot be taken into consideration by this Forum.
12. The another plea raised by the opposite parties is that as per Section 24A (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, a complaint should be filed within two years from the date on which cause of action has arisen. In this complaint, the Original Sale Deed Ex.C2 was kept as collateral security with the second opposite party by the complainant on 26.07.2001 and hence, the complaint is barred by limitation. From the facts narrated above, this Forum observed that initially the complainant borrowed loan of Rs.5.00 lakhs from the opposite party on 26.07.2001 by keeping the Ex.C2 as collateral security. Subsequently, the complainant borrowed another Extension loan of Rs.10,75,000/- on 26.08.2009. She had paid the Equated Monthly Instalments till 04.07.2014 the date of full repayment of the loan. The said fact is also reflected in the Ex.C16 the statement of Accounts.
13. Further, in this case, it is the bounden duty, obligation and liability of the OPs to return the title deed to the loanee / complainant after the settlement of entire loan amount. Ex.C9 dated 29.01.2015 clearly shows that the complainant has repaid the entire dues and the OPs issued No Due Certificate. Further the OPs sent a letter Ex.C15 dated 4.5.2015 to the complainant stating their inability to return the said original title deeds being misplaced. In view of the above facts, the plea of Cause of Action and Limitation for filing the complaint raised by the OP is not acceptable and the complainant filed this complaint within the period of limitation.
14. Finally, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that as a result of the non-return of the original title deed, the complainant suffered harassment, mental agony, loss and injuries. In the absence of original sale deed, it has become very difficult for them to sell the house nor they are in a position to obtain the loan by depositing the original title deeds in future. The complainant further submitted that she was unable to help her sister, the CW2 who helped the complainant. The CW2 deposed that she was inclined to avail Housing Loan to which the title deeds of the complainant was very much essential as collateral security. Because of the non-availability of title deed of the complainant, CW2 was unable to avail loan. Further the complainant sustained sufferings and hardships. Hence, the complainant claimed compensation for the loss and injuries, the complainant claimed compensation and relied upon a judgment reported in CDJ 2017 (Cons.) Case No. 077 [Secretary / Manager, Mayyanad Regional Co-Operative Bank vs Ebrahimkutty] wherein, the Hon'ble National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, New Delhi held that "if the original title deed had been lost, the value of the property was bound to be affected and held that the bank was liable to pay compensation to the complainant.
15. On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party that it was informed to the complainant that the bank would take steps to obtain certified copy of sale deed from the Registration Department and also takes steps to file missing complaint before the policy and also effect paper publication. Further submitted that the certified copy of original title deed would be sufficient for mutation of patta and to obtain electricity Connection and also for applying before any Authorities to avail any Loan etc. Further submitted that mere loss of documents would not affect the title to the properties and also stated that the complainant is claiming exorbitant compensation of Rs.17,70,000/- without establishing by any documentary evidences and relied upon a judgment reported in First Appeal No. 346/2011 [The Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Gandhigram Branch, Dindigul and 2 others vs M. Mohandass] wherein, the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai held that
"…the property mortgaged, for which title deed is given is worth of only Rs.36,000/- in the year 1997, as seen from the registered document. By obtaining a loan of Rs.3 lakhs, the complainant benefited himself and unfortunately by committing deficiency in service, the opposite parties were unable to return the document, after discharge, for which they are liable to reasonable compensation. The complainant has not made out any case, by not returning the original document, he suffered a damage of Rs.4.5 lakhs as claimed, and the District Forum has also not made out a case, how the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.15 lakhs by way of compensation, that too with interest from the date of discharge of the debt……. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and the deficiency committed by the opposite parties, in not returning the original document, we order a reasonable compensation of Rs.15,000/-…..".
16. Admittedly, the complainant availed home loans in two occasions from the OPs bank by way of deposit of original title deed and it was duly repaid by her and the 'No Dues Certificate' was issued by the OPs Bank on 29.01.2015 vide Ex.C9. As soon as the loans were discharged, the OPs were liable to return back the original sale deed to the complainant, but the OP bank failed to do so and made the complainant to visit them personally and over phone. Even then, the OPs bank did not return the original title deed to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant made complaints to the Banking Ombudsman and Reserve Bank of India. Thereafter, the OPs issued letter Ex.C15 dated 04.05.2015 stating that the original documents have been inadvertently misplaced in their safety locker.
17. From the above facts and discussions, it is clear that the OPs were acted in negligent manner which constitute deficiency in service and it resulted loss and injury to the complainant. In this regard, we relied upon the authorities submitted by both the Counsels. Wherein, the result of both the judgments confirms the deficiency committed by the opposite parties for not returning the original documents and ordered for compensation. The complainant established her case and the OPs are liable for the deficiency in service and for the negligent act. This Forum relied the above said recent judgment rendered by the Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi in the First Appeal No. 288 of 2014 dated 20.02.2017 for determining the compensation. In the above said Judgment, the Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi held that
"It may be true that the OP/appellant allowed the complainant to avail himself of loans from time to time all these years, even in the event of title deed having been misplaced / lost. However, this does not mean that other financing institutions shall also extend the loan facility to the complainant in the absence of title deed. It is made out, therefore, that the complainant did suffer due to the loss of the title deeds. The deficiency in service on the part of the Bank is clearly established, because the title deed under their custody got lost.
18. Further, in the above said judgment, the Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi also referred various judgments of same nature rendered by them which had also held that
"the Bank was liable to pay compensation to the complainant, because the value of the property was bound to be affected, if the original title deed had been lost".
19. Since the facts of the case on hand is also same in nature, keeping the view and decision of the Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi in the above referred judgment, this Forum also observed that the complainant should be compensated with reasonable amount as compensation for the loss and injuries sustained by her for the negligent act and deficiency in service of the opposite parties.
20. POINT No.3:
In the result, the complaint is hereby allowed and the OPs are jointly and severally directed
1) to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation for the irreparable loss, hardship and mental agony suffered due to the negligent act and deficiency in service of the OPs.
2) to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards cost of this proceedings.
Dated this the 5th day of October 2017.
- ASOKAN)
PRESIDENT
(V.V. STEEPHEN)
MEMBER
(D. KAVITHA)
MEMBER
COMPLAINANTS' WITNESS:
CW1 23.03.2016 Beena Rani
CW2 18.10.2016 Shyamala Devi
OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS: NIL
COMPLAINANTS' EXHIBITS :
Ex.C1 | 26.07.2001 | Photocopy of Loan agreement |
| Ex.C2 | 13.09.2000 | Photocopy of sale deed |
Ex.C3 | 26.08.2009 | Photocopy of Loan Agreement |
Ex.C4 | 29.06.2009 | Photocopy of approval issued by Puducherry Planning Authority |
Ex.C5 | 28.12.2010 | Photocopy of full prepayment of loan |
Ex.C6 | 21.11.2013 | Photocopy of part prepayment of loan |
Ex.C7 | 04.07.2014 | Photocopy of full prepayment of loan |
Ex.C8 | 07.05.2014 | Photocopy of part prepayment of loan |
Ex.C9 | 29.01.2015 | Photocopy of No Due Certificate issued by OP Bank |
Ex.C10 | 02.03.2015 | Photocopy of letter sent by complainant to Reserve Bank of India |
Ex.C11 | 02.03.2015 | Photocopy of Postal Receipts |
Ex.C12 | | Photocopy of Acknowledgement cards |
Ex.C13 | 06.04.2015 | Photocopy of letter sent by complainant to Banking Ombudsman, Chennai |
Ex.C14 | 06.04.2015 | Photocopy of Postal Receipts |
Ex.C15 | 04.05.2015 | Photocopy of letter from OP Bank to complainant regarding misplace of documents |
Ex.C16 | | Statement of Accounts of complainant issued by State Bank of India, Puducherry |
Ex.C17 | | Statement of Account of CW2 issued by State Bank of Travancore marked through CW2 |
Ex.C18 | | Statement of Account of CW2 issued by Canara Bank, Cuddalore. |
OPPOSITE PARTYS' EXHIBITS: NIL
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS: NIL
- ASOKAN)
PRESIDENT
(V.V. STEEPHEN)
MEMBER
(D. KAVITHA)
MEMBER
