DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE
PRESENT: Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT
Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) : MEMBER
Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER
Wednesday the 28th day of February 2024
CC.121/2022
Complainant
Ajithakumari. V. S,
Amruthanjali (HO),
Marikkunnu. P. O,
Kozhikode – 673012
(By Adv. Sri. Pavithran. K)
Opposite Party
The Manager,
Canara Bank,
Vallimadukunnu,
Kozhikode – 673012
(By Adv. Sri. P. K. Narayanan)
ORDER
By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN – PRESIDENT
This is a complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
- The delay in preferring this complaint was condoned as per order dated 25/05/2022 in IA 99/2022, filed by the complainant.
- The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:
In October 2014 the complainant approached the opposite party bank for availing an education loan for the studies of her daughter for BAMS. The bank manager assured sanctioning of education loan, but he demanded surety for a loan of Rs. 4,00,000/-, which was against then existing guidelines. The title deed of the property of the complainant was deposited in the Syndicate bank, Panniyankara branch in connection with a housing loan availed. When this was informed to the opposite party, the complainant was advised to close the said housing loan and to avail housing and education loans from the opposite party bank.
- Believing the words of the opposite party, the complainant closed the housing loan in the Syndicate bank borrowing a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- from one of his friends. Thereafter she entrusted the title deed to the opposite party and also paid Rs. 10,000/- as processing fee for the proposed loan. Thereafter she was advised by the manager to approach Sri. Raju Thomas, who was the engineer of the bank. But Sri. Raju Thomas was not ready to prepare the plan as he was the engineer of the opposite party bank.
- On 8/11/2014 the complainant preferred the loan application to the opposite party. But she was informed by the opposite party that the loan would not be sanctioned. Then she demanded back her documents and the process fee of Rs. 10,000/- paid. But the opposite party was not ready to do so inspite of repeated demands. The complainant then approached the State Bank of India and availed education loan without offering any surety.
- In November 2015, there was a bank loan mela at Kozhikode and the complainant stated her grievance to the Regional Manager of the opposite party and as per his direction a complaint was lodged in the CRM, Canara Bank. But her grievance was not redressed. In the year 2018 the complainant preferred a complaint to the CEP cell of the Reserve Bank of India pursuant to which, a direction was issued to the opposite party to return her documents. Accordingly, the opposite party asked her to report in the bank to receive the documents. When she reported in the bank she was informed that the loan could be granted to her. Since she had already availed loan from another bank, she stated that she was not in need of any loan. But even after repeated visits to the bank in March 2018, she was not handed over the documents and the bank authorities stated that the documents were in the Chalappuram branch. Though she went three times she was not given the documents stating one reason or other.
- On 16/03/2018 a person claimed to be a private financier contacted her over telephone informing that her title deed etc. were with him. It is not known how her title deed and other documents happened to be in the custody of the said person.
- The complainant had not gone to the bank since 30/03/2018. Till now the documents are not returned. She suspects some fraudulent dealings using her documents. Hence the complainant to direct the opposite parties to produce her title deed and other documents before this Commission and also to file an affidavit to the effect that the documents were not misused. The complainant is also seeking refund of Rs. 10,000/- paid by her towards process fee and also Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation along with cost of the proceedings.
- The opposite party has resisted the complaint by filing written version wherein all the allegations and claims made against the bank are denied and disputed. According to the opposite party, the story that the bank had promised to grant education/housing loan to the complainant and demanding of security is not correct and hence denied. The opposite party never insisted the complainantt to close her loan in the Syndicate bank and to produce the said loan papers for granting housing loan. It is true that the complainant had produced the documents for availing loan. The opposite party never received Rs. 10,000/- as process fee from the complainant. The loan can be granted only after depositing the original title deed. Some of the documents produced were not original. The bank requested the complainant to take back the documents, but the complainant did not turn up. Hence the bank kept the documents under safe custody till now.
- It is not correct to say that the complainant had approached the bank repeatedly for getting back the documents. The bank is not answerable for the phone calls made by somebody else. Since the complainant did not take back the documents in time and the lapse was on her part, the bank is not bound to compensate her. The complainant abandoned the documents at the bank as a coercive step to get the loan sanctioned. There is no bonafides on the part of the complainant and the allegations are without any basis. With the above contentions, the opposite party prays for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
- The points that arise for determination in this complaint are; a) Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party bank, as alleged? b) Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of any amount from the opposite party bank, as claimed? c) Whether the prayer for the production of the documents is allowable? d) Whether the claim for compensation is allowable? If so, what is the quantum? e) Reliefs and costs.
- The evidence consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exts A1 to A8 on the side of the complainant. No oral evidence was let in by the opposite party. Exts B1 to B11 were marked. Brief argument note was filed by the complainant.
- Heard both sides.
- Point No 1: The complainant has approached this Commission with the main grievance that the documents pertaining to her property handed over to the opposite party for the purpose of considering her application for housing and education loan were not returned to her on non-sanctioning of the loan, despite repeated requests.
- The complainant got herself examined as PW1, who has filed proof affidavit and deposed in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim. Ext A1 is the copy of the complaint dated 3/9/2015 submitted by the complainant before the CRM Canara Bank Regional Office, Kozhikode, Ext A2 is the copy of the agreement dated 01/11/2014 entered in between the complainant and one Mr. Jayachandran, Ext A3 is the copy of the document sanctioning education loan from SBI Vellimadukunnu branch, Ext A4 is the copy of the complaint submitted by the complainant before CEP cell RBI, Ext A5 is the acknowledgment receipt issued by the RBI, Ext A6 is the documents showing closure of the loan in the syndicate bank, Ext A7 is the copy of the letter dated 12/02/2018 issued by the opposite party and Ext A8 is the copy of the discharge summary issued by Rajendra Hospital, Kozhikode.
- As already stated, the opposite party did not adduce any oral evidence. The documents submitted by the complainant before the opposite party for the purpose of the loan produced by the opposite party before this Commission along with the version were marked as Exts B1 to B11.
- Admittedly, Exts B1 to B11 documents were submitted to the opposite party by the complainant in the year 2014 for the purpose of availing the loan. Ext B1 is the original title deed of the property of the complainant. Admittedly, the loan was not sanctioned by the opposite party bank. Exts B1 to B11 documents remained in the custody of the opposite party till their production before this Commission on 21/06/2022 along with the version for the purpose of handing over to the complainant. The definite case of the complainant is that the bank authorities neglected to return the documents despite her repeated requests. While in the box as PW1, the complainant has asserted that her repeated requests to the opposite party for return of the documents had fallen on deaf ears. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that the opposite party had ever requested the complainant to take back the documents from the bank at any point of time before the issuance of Ext A7 letter dated 12/02/2018. It has come out in evidence that her endeavour to highlight her grievance before the higher authorities of the opposite party bank was not fruitful. PW1 has maintained that even though she had preferred Ext A1 complaint before the CRM, Regional Office, Kozhikode as early as on 3/09/2015, nothing positive had taken place. Finally the complainant was constrained to approach the Reserve bank of India as per Ext A4 complaint and then only the opposite party issued Ext A7 letter dated 12/02/2018 asking the complainant to come and collect the documents. PW1 has a grievance that even after that she was not given the documents despite several visits to the bank. There is no reason to disbelieve PW1. Even though PW1 was subjected to searching cross examination, nothing has been brought out to discredit her version. No explanation is forthcoming from the part of the opposite party for not returning the documents in time. The documents submitted in 2014 were kept with the bank indefinitely for reasons best known to the bank. As and when the loan was not sanctioned, the bank was bound to return the documents to the complainant. By not doing so, there was deficient service on the part of the bank. Gross deficiency of service in this regard is established and proved. Point is answered in favour of the complainant.
- Point No. 2: The complainant has alleged that the opposite party had collected Rs. 10,000/- from her as processing charge and same was not returned. But there is absolutely no evidence regarding any such payment. The collection of any such amount towards processing charge is denied by the bank. Not even a piece of paper is produced by the complainant to show that she had paid any amount towards processing charges to the opposite party. PW1 has deposed in the cross examination that one Mr. Sasidharan was present with her when she handed over Rs. 10,000/- to the manager on 8/11/2014 as processing charge. If that be so, the said Sasidharan is the best person to speak about the same. But he was not cited as a witness and examined before this Commission. The payment of Rs. 10,000/- as processing charges to the opposite party is not proved and hence the question of repayment of the amount does not arise at all. Point is answered against the complainant.
- Point No. 3: As already stated, along with the version, the opposite parties have produced 11 documents marked as Ext B1 to B11 which were submitted by the complainant for the purpose of processing the loan request, in order to hand over to the complainant. So the complainant can take back Exts B1 to B11 documents from this Commission, after the appeal period is over. Point answered accordingly.
- Point No. 4: We have already found under issue No. 1 that there was gross deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in the matter of timely return of the documents including the original title deed to the complainant on non-sanctioning of the loan. There is delay of more than 3 years in sending Ext A7 letter to the complainant expressing their willingness to return the documents. It was after a long delay of more than 7 years that the documents were produced before this Commission for handing over to the complainant. The delay is not at all justified. Undoubtedly, the complainant was put to intense mental agony and hardship due to the negligent and irresponsible attitude and conduct of the opposite party. The complainant is entitled to be compensated adequately. The claim for compensation is Rs 2,00,000/-. The claim appears to be a bit excessive. However, the complainant is entitled to get a reasonable amount as compensation. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, we are of the view that a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- will be reasonable compensation in this case. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs. 5,000/- as cost of the proceedings. Point found accordingly.
- Point No. 5:- In the light of the finding on the above points, the complaint is disposed of as follows;
a) CC.121/2022 is allowed in part.
b) The opposite party is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) as compensation to the complainant.
c) The complainant can receive Exts B1 to B11 documents from this Commission on proper acknowledgment, after the appeal period is over.
d) The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
e) The payment as afore stated shall be made within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- shall carry an interest of 6% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment.
f) The prayer for refund of processing fee is not allowed.
Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 28th day of February, 2024.
Date of Filing: 22/04/2022
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant :
Ext.A1 – Copy of the complaint dated 3/9/2015 submitted by the complainant before the CRM Canara Bank Regional Office, Kozhikode.
Ext.A2 – Copy of the agreement dated 01/11/2014 entered in between the complainant and one Mr. Jayachandran.
Ext.A3 – Copy of the document sanctioning education loan from SBI Vellimadukunnu branch.
Ext.A4 – copy of the complaint submitted by the complainant before CEP cell RBI.
Ext.A5 – Acknowledgment receipt issued by the RBI.
Ext.A6 – Documents showing closure of the loan in the syndicate bank.
Ext.A7 – Copy of the letter dated 12/02/2018 issued by the opposite party.
Ext.A8 – Copy of the discharge summary issued by Rajendra Hospital, Kozhikode.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party
Ext.B1 – Registered Janmam assignment deed No. 3947/2003.
Ext.B2 – Copy of the registered Janmam assignment deed No. 3489/2003.
Ext.B3 – Copy of the registered settlement deed No. 3582/1999.
Ext.B4 – Copy of the registered Will No. 4/1976.
Ext.B5 – Copy of purchase certificate issued by the Land Tribunal Kozhikode in favor of Perachutty.
Ext.B6 – E.C. No. 11389/2014 issued from V.O. Chevayoor for the period from 01/01/2000 to 12/11/2014.
Ext.B7 – Basic tax receipt No. 4196677 issued by the V.O. Chevayoor.
Ext.B8 – Possession certificate dated 27/11/2014.
Ext.B9 – Location certificate No. 3825/14.
Ext.B10 – Location sketch of field No. 120/1.
Ext.B11 – Building tax receipt dated 13/11/2014.
Witnesses for the Complainant
PW1 - Ajithakumari. V. S (Complainant)
Witnesses for the opposite parties
Nil.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
True Copy,
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar.
