BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

            Dated this the 5^th day of September 2018

                                                                                       Filed on :  23.02.2016

PRESENT:

Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose,                                                 President.

Shri. Sheen Jose,                                                                 Member.

Smt. Beena Kumari V.K.                                                      Member.

                        CC.No.125/2016

                              Between  

                                                         O R D E R

Sheen Jose, Member

1.  The case of the complainant is as follows:

  This complaint is filed by the complainant Smt. Mangalakumari C.K., claiming compensation for deficiency in service from the opposite party – Bank in causing inordinate delay in releasing the original title deed of property mortgaged for loan amount. The complainant’s husband had availed loan amount in the year 2007 from the opposite party – Bank in three various business purposes and out of which 3 lakhs for Micro enterprises, 2^nd and 3^rd items of loan were Rs.50,000/- and 4 lakhs respectively. It is submitted that all the above loans were secured by the complainant by depositing title deed of property having an extent of 8.8 cents in Sy.No.1794/2 of Rameswaram Village. The complainant’s husband Unni died on 23.05.2007 and thereafter the loan amount was closed in September 2008 by the complainant. But the title deed of the property mortgaged has not been returned alleging the property was mortgaged for educational loan of complainant’s son Mr.Manu who availed a loan of less than Rs.4 lakhs for nursing education.  The education loan was also closed by the complainant on 26.06.2015 but the original title deed has not been returned by the opposite party stating that the original title deed was missing.  The bank also insisted to execute an indemnity bond for returning the original title deed which was conceded by the complainant and finally the original title deed was retuned on 14.09.2015. The complainant alleged in his complaint that the opposite party- bank had committed serious deficiency in service and negligence by not returning the original title deed of the mortgaged property despite closing of loan amount in September 2008 and made several requests in this regard. It is submitted that the property was mortgaged for the educational loan of complainant’s son because as per the guidelines issued for sanctioning educational loan, loan upto 4 lakhs shall be sanctioned without any collateral securities and it is further revealed that no property had been received as collateral security for educational loan of complainant’s son in a letter issued by the bank under RTI Act. The complainant further alleged in her complaint that she had suffered a lot of inconvenience, financial loss, serious mental agony..etc. due to the delay in returning the original title deeds.   She could not apply for electricity and water connection to the premises and could not use of the building for letting out to tenants. There is an additional payment of penalty at the local authority for the delay in effecting mutation of property within one year from the date of demise of the owner of the building.  Therefore, the complainant is seeking direction against the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.5 lakh towards compensation for the loss caused towards rent of building of the complainant being the subject matter of mortgage from Sep. 2008 till the date of filing of this complaint. She also prayed an amount of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the local authority as penalty for the delay caused for submitting application for mutation of building in the name of the complainant and her son and seeking Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and pain suffered by the complainant demanding return of original title deed of the mortgaged property and consequent denial of same by the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.

2)      Version filed by the opposite party is as follows:

The opposite party contended in their version that the above mentioned complaint is neither sustained by law nor facts. The opposite party is a public sector bank and is working as per the law and procedure prescribed regarding banking. The complainant’s husband Mr.Unni had availed loan from the opposite party and deposited title deed of his property having an extent of 8.8 cents in SY. No.1794/2 of Rameswaram Village.  However, during his life time the loan was not repaid.  One business loan amounting to Rs.50,000/- was closed by the complainant on 18^th September 2008 and another loan of Rs.3,00,000/- was also closed on 18^th September 2008.  It is true that the said Mr.Unni also availed an educational loan as co-borrower for his son’s education and the complainant was a guarantor to the said educational loan. The title deed was in the name of deceased Unni which was deposited by him for creating a security by way of mortgage towards the above mentioned loans after his death.  The opposite party - Bank can hand over the same to the legal heirs of the deceased or to a person who is authorized by the legal heirs. When the loan was closed it was informed to the complainant that as per the procedure envisaged by RBI in case of accounts of the deceased persons one should produce legal heirship certificate and indemnity bond to get return the original title deed.  However the complainant has not provided the same till 14.09.2015.  On that date she approached the bank and submitted the legal heir-ship certificate along with the indemnity bond and on the same day the title deed was returned to her against receipt.  There was no delay of latches from the complainant -bank in delivering the title deeds to the complainant. The opposite party had not done anything against the legal rights of the complainant, but exercised the legal rights of the opposite party.  The title deed was retained by the bank inorder to avoid any further dispute or claim between any persons who are the legal heirs of deceased Unni.  The opposite party bank has acted diligently and according to the procedure with respect to the settlement of accounts of the deceased persons. There is no cause of action for the complaint and the complainant is not entitled for get any of the reliefs as claimed in the complaint.  The opposite party prayed that the version may be accepted and the complaint may be dismissed with cost towards the opposite party.

3)      Evidence in this case consists of no oral evidence adduced by both the complainant and the opposite party. The documentary evidences adduced by the complainant which were marked as Exbt. A1 to A8.  No documentary evidence adduced by the opposite party.

4)      Issues came up for considerations are as follows:

1. Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the side of the opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs.5 lakhs from the opposite party for the loss caused towards rent of building of the complainant being the subject matter of mortgaged from Sep. 2008 till the date of filing of this complaint?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation of Rs.10,000/-  from the opposite party, to be paid to local authority as penalty for the delay caused for submitting application form mutation of building in the name of the complainant and her son?
4. Whether the opposite party is liable to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant demanding returning of original title deed of the mortgaged property and consequent denial of same by the opposite party?

5)      Issue No. (i)

          This complaint is filed by the complainant Smt. Mangala kumari C.K alleging inordinate delay in releasing the title deed of the property mortgaged by her husband to the opposite party – Bank, Central Bank of India for taking the loan amount from the opposite party. The complainant’s husband had taken a loan amount of Rs.4 lakh from the opposite party- bank in the year 2007.  Before that the complainant had taken micro enterprises loan 3 lakhs and another 2^nd term of loan Rs.50,000/- and above 4 lakh is the 3^rd term of loan.  The complainant’s husband who had availed loans from the opposite party- bank on 23.05.2007 and thereafter the loan amount was closed in September 2008.But the title deed of the property mortgaged had not been returned to the complainant alleging that the property was mortgaged for educational loan for the benefit of the complainant’s son Mr. Manu who availed loan of less than Rs. 4 lakhs for nursing loan.  It is submitted that the educational loan closed on 26.08.2015. But the original title deed of property having an extent of 8.8 cents in Sy No. 1794/2 of Rameswaram Village Exbt.A1 is the accounts statement of late. P.R.Unni  and  his son P.U Manu in the account No.1285505077 showing payment of instalments of loan of Rs.50,622/- for the period from 31.05.2007 to 31.08.2008. Exbt.A2 is the true copy of statement of account No. 1285503749 in the name of Puthessery Ice Factory.Exbt.A3 is a true copy of certificate issued by the Bank Manager dated 16.02.2012 and Exbt.A4 is the true copy of the letter submitted by the complainant to the Banking Ombudsman dated 23.09.2015 and Exbt.A5 is a true copy of certificate senior manager 01.09.2015 and Exbt.A6 is the true copy of the registered letter issued by the Regional Manager dated 28.10.2015 wherein it  was informed to the complainant that the educational loan was sanctioned to her husband late Mr.Unni and son Mr. Manu in the year 2005 and that no security was demanded for the educational loan availed by the complainant’s late husband/son. Exbt.A7 is the true copy of the letter issued by the RBI dated 23.11.2015 wherein it was informed that Exbt.A5 complaint submitted by the complainant had been transferred to Banking Ombudsman. Exbt.A8 is the true copy of the letter dated 06.06.2015 issued by the complainant to the opposite party- Bank Manager requesting the release of the original document No.1370/1/99 dated 27.03.1999 of Cochin Sub Registry in respect of 8.800 cents of land in Sy No.1794/2 along with building No.18/1375 of Rameswaram Village.   The case of the complainant is that the property could not be mutated in the name of the complainant (widow of late Unni) and in the name of their son for want of the original title deeds which were in the custody of opposite party – bank. It is also contended that the complainant could not apply for electricity and water connection to the premises so as to enable her to let the building to tenants.  Therefore she claimed an amount of Rs.5 Lakh towards compensation @ 6000/- per month as expected rent amount from September 2008 onwards.  The local authority imposed penalty on the complainant for the delay in affecting mutation of the property within one year from the date of death of the owner of the building.  She claimed an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation from the opposite party – Bank for the deficiency in service offered by them in not releasing the title deeds in time and for the mental agony suffered by the complainant. The op –Bank in their version stated that the deceased Unni, the complainant’s husband had deposited title deed in his name for creating a security by way of mortgaged for the loans taken by the deceased Unni and when the loan was closed it was duly informed to the complainant that as per the procedure envisaged by the RBI in the case of accounts of the deceased persons she should produce legal heir ship certificate and indemnity bond to get back the original title deed.  The complainant had submitted the legal heirship certificate on 14.09.2015 and on that day itself the original title deed was returned to her against receipt.  On appreciation of the evidences submitted by the complainant it is evident that the complainant had applied for getting back the original title deed only on 06.06.2015 as evidenced by Exbt.A8. The above letter was received the opposite party –bank on 26.06.2015 as endorsed in Exbt.A8 itself. On getting the above application the op required the complainant to produce the legal heir ship and the said legal heir certificate was produced before the op bank on 14.09.2015 and on the same day itself the opposite party- bank had returned the original title deed We find that there is no delay or latches on the part of the opposite party – Bank in delivering the original title deeds of the property to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party as alleged by her in this complaint.  Therefore the 1^st issue is decided against the complainant.

6)      Issue Nos. (ii) to (iv)

Having found the issue No. (i) against the complainant, we are not inclined to consider and decide issue Nos. (ii) to (iv).

In the result, the complaint is found liable to be dismissed.  Accordingly the complaint is dismissed.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 5^th day of September 2018.

Sd/-Sheen Jose,   Member

Sd/-Cherian K. Kuriakose, President

Sd/-Beena Kumari, V.K., Member

                                                                             Forwarded by Order

                                                                             Senior Superintendent

APPENDIX

Complainants Exhibits

Opposite party's Exhibits:        Nil    

Date of Despatch   :

          By Hand      ::

          By Post       ::