IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
MURSHIDABAD, At BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC 120/2016
Date of Filing: Date of Admission : Date of Disposal:
12.08.2016 22.08.2016 18.09.2018
Sankar Saha
S/O, late Madan Mohan Saha
of 39/B, Mohanroypara, Saidabad,
P.O. Khagra
P.S. Berhampore town,
Dist- Murshidabad. Pin-742101 …..………… Complainant.
= Vs =
- The Manager, Bank of India,
a banking company under Acquisition
& Transfer of undertaking Act, 1970,
14, Bimal Sinha Sarani,
P.O. Berhampore,
Dist- Murshidabad. Pin-742101
- The Manager, Bank of India,
14, Bimal Sinha Sarani,
P.O. Berhampore,
Dist- Murshidabad.
Pin- 742101 ………........ Opposite Parties.
Cont. ……….…. 2
= 2 =
Sri Surojit Banerjee , Ld. Advocate : for the Complainant
Sri Jayanta Bagchi , Ld. Advocate : for the Opposite Parties
Present: Sri Asish Kumar Senapati …………………. President.
Smt. Chandrima Chakraborty ……………….. Member.
FINAL ORDER
Chandrima Chakraborty, Member.
Claiming himself as a consumer, under the C. P. Act, 1986, the Complainant has sought for interference of this Forum in respect of fact complained of.
In diminutive the case stated in the complaint is that the Complainant is a proprietor of Urmila Bastralaya, business of selling cloths and readymade garments and obtained a loan of Rs. 8,00,000/- only lastly enhanced towards limit under cash credit facility from the Opposite Party Bank who had sanctioned the said loan by its letter dated 29.05.1998 subject to mortgage of house property of two storied building of the Complainant along with the other collateral securities pledging LIC policy fixed deposits certificate for securing the loan. The Complainant as primary security had deposited the ‘Title Deed’ being No. 9390 dated 16.12.98 of his two storied house building.
Cont. ……….…. 3
= 3 =
Thereafter the Complainant liquidated the entire loan amount together with interest by last payment on 31.05.2016 and requested the Opposite Party No. 2 to return the original Dale Deed and other collateral securities. But the Opposite Party No. 2 issued the ‘No Due Certificate’ but did not return the collateral securities including the said ‘Title Deed’ for which the Complainant had issued a legal notice dated 01.06.2016 through his Ld. Advocate for return of his collateral securities including the said ‘Title Deed’, but of no result.
The Complainant stated that the Opposite Parties are no right to retain the collateral securities as the Complainant had already liquidated the entire loan amount with interest. But the Opposite Parties had failed to return all the collateral securities including the ‘Title Deed’ towards the Complainant in spite of repeated requests, what amounts to negligence and deficiency in rendering service by the Opposite Parties towards the Complainant for which being victimized and harassed by the Opposite Parties the Complainant has to file the instant case seeking adequate redressal against the Opposite Parties.
Resisting the complaint, both Opposite Parties have filed the Written Version denying the contentions and all material allegations made by the Complainant in the petition of complaint and stating inter alia, that the complainant has no cause of action to file the case and the same is not maintainable and is barred by limitation.
The specific case of the Opposite Parties, in crisp, is that, the Complainant did not mention the mortgage property with details of documents regarding other collateral securities of pledging LIC policies and fixed deposit service.
Cont. ……….…. 4
= 4 =
The loan account of the Complainant has been closed on 19.07.2016 and the Opposite Parties already had issued ‘No Due Certificate’ on 29.09.16 and also had returned the seven TDR to the Complainant and the Complainant received the sum by put his signature on 29.09.2016.
The Opposite Parties Bank specifically stated that on verbal request of the Complainant the Opposite Parties Bank had returned the original ‘Title Deed’ to the Complainant for purpose of recording his name in the Office of the BL & LRO on good faith and the Complainant assured the Bank to return back the said ‘Title Deed’ after hearing regarding recording his name. But the Complainant did not returned the same to the Opposite Parties Bank and created breach of trust.
Thus, this Opposite Parties did no wrong and has denied any negligence or/ and deficiency in rendering service on their part towards the Complainant. Hence, they prayed for dismissal of the instant case.
Point for Consideration
1. Is the complaint maintainable under the C. P. Act ?
2. Was there any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps ?
3. Is the complainant entitled to get the relief as prayed for ?
Decision with Reasons
All the points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of convenience and brevity.
It is revealed from the record that the Opposite Party No. 1 and the Opposite Party No. 2 is the same and identical person.
Cont. ……….…. 5
= 5 =
The main dispute between the Complainant and the Opposite Parties is that, whether the Opposite Parties are liable for deficient and/or negligence in rendering service towards the Complainant or not.
On overall evaluation of the argument made before us by the Ld. Advocates for the Complainant and the Opposite Parties and critical appreciation of the material evidences on record, it is evident that admittedly the Complainant had obtained a loan of Rs. 8,00,000/- only from the Opposite Parties Bank and thus the Complainant has become a consumer under the Opposite Parties.
It is also admitted by both the parties that the said loan was sanctioned by the Opposite Parties Bank on condition to mortgage of house property of two storied building of the Complainant along with the other collateral securities pledging LIC policy Certificates for securing the loan and the Complainant had been deposited the ‘Title Deed’ being No. 9390, dated 16.12.98 of his two storied house building as security deposit towards the Opposite Parties Bank.
The record reveals that the Complainant liquidated the entire loan amount together with interest by last payment on 31.05.2016 and the said loan account of the Complainant has been closed on 19.07.2016 and the Opposite Parties Bank already had issued the ‘No Due Certificate’ on 29.09.16 in favour of the Complainant.
Now the dispute between the Complainant and the Opposite Party Bank is that the Complainant alleged that after liquidated the entire loan amount together with interest by the Complainant though the Bank issued the ‘No Due Certificate’ but failed return the collateral securities including the ‘Title Deed’ , being No. 9390 dated 16.12.98 of two storied house towards the Complainant instead of repeated requests made on part of the Complainant.
Cont. ……….…. 6
= 6 =
On the other hand, the Opposite Party Bank specifically stated by filing the Written Version that on verbal request of the Complainant the Opposite Parties Bank had returned the original ‘Title Deed’ to the Complainant for purpose of recording his name in the Office of the BL & LRO on good faith and the Complainant assured the Bank to return back the said ‘Title Deed’ after hearing regarding recording his name in the BL & LRO. But in fact the Complainant not returned the same to the Opposite Parties Bank.
Now the only dispute is that whether the Opposite Party Bank had actually returned the all collateral securities including the ‘Title Deed’ of the two storied house building towards the Complainant or not.
It is clearly evident from the photocopies of the documents filed by the Complainant that the Complainant had sent a legal notice on 01.06.2016 claiming all his collateral securities including the ‘Title Deed’ which was deposited towards the Opposite Party Bank on condition to obtain the loan.
But on the contrary, it is also manifestly revealed from the photocopy of the document, i.e. the ‘No Due Certificate’ dated 26.09.2016 filed by the Opposite Party Bank that at the time of issuing the said ‘No Due Certificate’ in favour of the Complainant, the Opposite Parties Bank had delivered the all collateral securities which was deposited by the Complainant towards the Opposite Party Bank except the said ‘Title Deed’ of two storied house property and the Complainant had received all such documents by putting his signature on 29.09.2016 upon the said ‘No Due Certificate’ dated 26.09.2016.
Now at the time of hearing argument the Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Party Bank stated that on verbal request of the Complainant the Opposite Party Bank has handed over the said alleged ‘Title Deed’ for entering his name in the BL & LRO record to the Complainant on good faith
Cont. ……….…. 7
= 7 =
and without taking any signature of the Complainant to evident that the Complainant had actually taken back the said ‘Title Deed’ from the Opposite Party Bank and thereafter the Complainant not yet returned back the said ‘Title Deed’ towards the Bank instead of assured the Bank to return back the same after hearing at BL & LRO.
But the fact remains that the Opposite Party Bank miserably failed to explain why the Bank authority allowed the Complainant to take back the said ‘Title Deed’ without putting any signature for the same which is not at all believable, whereas the Bank has taken the signature of the Complainant on the ‘No Due Certificate’ dated 26.09.2016, at the time of returning all other Collateral securities on 29.09.2016.
Thus, it is crystal clear from the above discussion that the Complainant has proved that the Opposite Party Bank did not yet return back the ‘Title Deed’ of his two storied house property towards the Complainant after liquidated the entire loan amount together with interest though the Bank authority has duly closed the loan account of the Complainant on 19.07.2016 and had issued the ‘No Due Certificate’ on 29.09.16 in favour of the Complainant.
So the unanimous decision of the Forum is that the Opposite Party Bank has any how lost the said ‘Title Deed’ of the house property of the Complainant and thus is held liable for rendering the negligence and deficient manner of service towards the Complainant or which the Opposite Party Bank is liable to pay compensation and litigation cost in favour of the Complainant.
Therefore, in the light of the above discussion it is finally and commonly decided by the Forum that the Complainant has successfully proved the case and is entitled to get relief as prayed for, and consequently, the points for consideration are decided in affirmative.
Cont. ……….…. 8
= 8 =
In short, the Complainant deserves success.
In the result, we proceed to pass
O R D E R
That the case be and same is allowed on contest against the Opposite Parties with cost of Rs. 5,000/- only payable by the Opposite Parties within 45 days from the date of this ‘Order’.
That the Opposite Parties are directed to return back the said alleged ‘Title Deed’ , being No. 9390, dated 16.12.98 to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of this ‘Order’.
That in failure to return back the said ‘Title Deed’ , being No. 9390 dated 16.12.98, the Opposite Parties are directed to issue a Certificate contending that the said ‘Title Deed’ has been lost from the custody of the Bank by 45 days from the date of this ‘Order’ and also to pay an amount of Rs. 40,000/- only to the Complainant for lost of the said ‘Title Deed’ within 45 days from the date of this ‘Order’.
That the Opposite Parties are further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- only to the Complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony within 45 days from the date of this ‘Order’.
In the event of non compliance of any portion of the order by the Opposite Parties within a period of 45 days from the date of this ‘Order’, the default Opposite Parties shall have to pay a sum of Rs. 100/- per day, from the date of this order till full satisfaction of the decree, which amount shall be deposited by the said default Opposite Parties in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.
Cont. ……….…. 9
= 9 =
Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgment / be sent forthwith under ordinary post to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in
MEMBER PRESIDENT
