BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, VELLORE DISTRICT AT VELLORE. PRESENT: THIRU. A. SAMPATH, B.A., B.L., PRESIDENT TMT. G. MALARVIZHI, B.E. MEMBER – I THIRU. K. DHAYALAMURTHI,B.SC. MEMBER – II CC. 33 / 2007 FRIDAY THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2010. J. Balasami, S/o. Jaiyanna Naidu, No.21/1 1st Street, Hakeem Nagar, Rasathupuram, Melvisharam, Walaja Taluk, Vellore Dist. … Complainant. - Vs – The Manager, India, Bank, Melvisharam Branch, Melvisharam, Walaja Taluk, Vellore District. … Opposite party. . . . . . This petition coming on for final hearing before us on 8.3.2010, in the presence of Thiru. T.S.Kannaiyan, Advocate for the complainant and Thiru. K.M. Natarajan, Advocate for the opposite party and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following: O R D E R Pronounced by Thiru. A. Sampath, President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Vellore District. I. The brief facts of the case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant had borrowed a loan of Rs.20,000/- on 1.12.04 from the opposite party bank at that time complainant had deposited his two title deeds namely one is dated 20.11.03 standing in complainant’s name and another parent document dated 28.3.94 of complainant’s house property. On various dates he had repaid the loan amount in instalments and finally on 7.3.07 complainant had paid the last intalment and thereby entire loan has been paid by the complainant. From 7.3.07 onwards several times he had approached the opposite party for the return of the documents deposited before opposite party for the said loan but till date the opposite party had not return the documents. Hence the complainant issued a lawyer’s notice on 2.6.2007 to opposite party for return the title deed. The same was served to opposite party on 4.6.07 but the opposite party not given any reply. Therefore direct the opposite party to return the deposited title deeds of the complainant to the complainant and to pay the Rs.50,000/- compensation, for deficiency in service on their part and , mental agony. Hence the complaint. 2. The averments in the counter filed by the opposite party is as follows: The complainant filed this complaint directing the opposite party to return the title deeds said to have been deposited by him i.e. two title deeds namely one is dated 20.11.03 standing in complainant’s name and another parent document dated 28.3.94 of complainant’s house property and also directing the opposite party to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation, thereby committing deficiency of service, mental agony and loss of the complainant’s valuable time is not sustainable either in law or on facts and it is to be dismissed in limine. The opposite party denies all the allegations made in the complaint save those that are admitted herein and put the complainant to strict proof of the same. The complainant is put to strict proof of that he had deposited the title deeds or any documents to the Bank. He had availed a loan of Rs.20,000/- on 1.12.04 for the purpose of improving his fire wood business. While sanctioning the said loan the bank had not stipulated any conditions that the complainant should deposit title deeds as security. There is no question of returning his documents as demanded by him. Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost. 3. Now the points for consideration are: (a) Whether there is any deficiency in service, on the part of the opposite party? (b) Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs asked for?. 4. Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 were marked on the side of the complainant and Ex.B1 to Ex.B11 were marked on the side of the opposite party. Proof affidavit of the complainant and Proof affidavit of the opposite party have been filed. No oral evidence let in by either side. 5. POINT NO. (a): It is admitted case of the parties that the complainant had borrowed a lone of Rs.20,000/- on 1.12.04 from the opposite party bank for the purpose of improving his fire wood business and the entire loan amount has been paid by the complainant. 6. The complainant contended that at the time of availing the loan, the complainant had deposited his two title deeds namely one is dt.20.11.03 standing in complainant’s name, and another parent document dt.28.3.94 of complainant’s house property. After discharged the loan, several time the complainant had approached the opposite party for the return of the documents deposited before the opposite party for the said loan but the opposite party had not return the documents. Thereafter, direct the opposite party to return the said documents and to pay the compensation for deficiency in service on their part. 7. The opposite party contended that while sanctioning the loan on 1.12.04, the opposite party bank had not stipulated any conditions that the complainant should deposit title deeds of the complainant as security. The complainant also not deposited his title deeds before the bank for the said loan. Therefore, there is no question of returning his documents. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. 8. The Ex.A1 legal notice dt.2.6.07 issued by the complainant to the opposite party for called upon to return the documents of title deeds. Ex.A2 Acknowledged the receipt of said legal notice by the opposite party and the Ex.A3 bank pass book of the complainant. Ex.B1 is the loan application and the Ex.B2 application for credit to retail trade submitted by the complainant before the opposite party’s bank. From the perusal of the Ex.B2 Manager’s recommendation dt.27.11.04 it is seen that the Bank Manager recommended the loan without security or against the security to the complainant. The Ex.B3, dt.1.12.04 Pronote for the loan executed by the complainant. A careful perusal of the Ex.B4, dt.1.12.04 agreement of Hypothecation of Movables and the Ex.B5, dt.1.12.04 agreement of guarantee, it is seen that term loan granted for the continuance of this security shall be brought into stored or be in or about the Borrower’s godowns or premises at Kilvisharam. One Smt. Marthal had given a guarantee for the said loan. The Manager of the opposite party’s bank issued a certificate dt.14.12.09 stating that there is no equitable Mortgage was created by Mr.Balasami (Complainant) for the loan amount of Rs.20,000/- availed on 1.12.04. Therefore it is clear that while sanctioning the loan of Rs.20,000/- on 1.12.04 to the complainant for the purpose of improving his fire wood business. The opposite party bank had not stipulated any conditions that the complainant deposited title deeds as security. 9. Hence, taking all the above facts into consideration from the contention in the complaint and the counter, as well as proof affidavit of the both the parties, and from the documents Ex.A1 to A3 and Ex.B1 to B11, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant herein has not clearly proved the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party herein. Hence we answer this point (a) as against the complainant herein. 10. POINT NO : (b) In view of our findings on point (a), since, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant herein has not clearly proved the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party herein. We have also come to the conclusion that the complainant is not at all entitled to any relief asked for by him, in this complaint. Hence we answer this point (b) also as against the complainant herein. 11. In the result this complaint is dismissed. No costs. Dictated to the Steno-typist and transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by the President, in Open Forum, this the 19th day of March 2010. MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT. List of Documents: Complainant’s Exhibits: Ex.A1 - 2.6.07 - X-copy of Legal Notice. Ex.A2- 4.6.07 - Ack. Card. Ex.A3 - -- - Bank Pass Book. Opposite party’s Exhibits: Ex.B1 - -- - X-copy of Request letter from the complainant. Ex.B2- 26.11.04 - X-copy of Application for small loan with Branch Sanction order. Ex.B3- 1.12.04 - X-copy of Demand Pronote executed by complainant. Ex.B4- -- - X-copy of Agreement of Hypothecation of complainant. Ex.B5 - -- - X-copy of Agreement of Guarantee by Marthal. Ex.B6- 26.3.07 - X-copy of Branch Sanction letter. Ex.B7- 26.3.07 - X-copy of Demand Pronote by complainant. Ex.B8 - -- - X-copy of Agreement of Hypothecation of complainant. Ex.B9 - -- - X-copy of Agreement of Guarantee by Marthal. Ex.B10- -- - X-copy of Statement of Account of the complainant. Ex.B11- 14.12.09 - X-copy of Certificate. MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT. | 
