Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/340/2014

INDIAN BANK, THE MANAGING DIRECTOR - Complainant(s)

Versus

MOHAMED MUSTAFA - Opp.Party(s)

RRK ASSOCIATES

24 Feb 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI - 600 003.

 BEFORE   Hon’ble THIRU. JUSTICE. R. SUBBIAH                   ::     PRESIDENT                       

                  Tmt.Dr.S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI                            ::      MEMBER

 

F.A. No.340/2014

  (Against the order dt.30.07.2014 made in C.C. No.98/2011 on the file of the D.C.D.R.C., Chennai (North))

                         DATED THE 24^TH  DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

 

1. The Managing Director,

Indian Bank,

Head Office/ Corporate Office,

Avvai Shanmugham Salai,

Royapettah,

Chennai – 600 014.                                                

 

2. The Chief Manager,

Indian Bank,

Dindigul Branch,

No.9, Chatram Street,

Dindugul – 624 001.                                ... Appellants 1 & 2 / Opposite parties 1 & 2.

 

- Versus –

 

Mr. Mohamed Mustafa,

S/o. Mr. A.V. Kader Mohideen,

No.88, Thiruvalluvar Nagar,

Tondiarpet,

Chennai – 600 081.                                                         ..Respondent /Complainant.

 

Counsel for Appellants /Opposite parties            : M/s. R.R.K. Associates

Counsel for Respondent /Complainant             : M/s. G. Muneendran

 

This appeal coming before us for final hearing today, on 24.02.2022 and on hearing the arguments of Appellant and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following order in open court :-

ORDER

Tmt. Dr. S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI:

            This appeal has been filed by the appellants / opposite parties 1 & 2 under section 15  of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (North).

 

1.         The factual background culminating  in to  appeal is as follows:-

The complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not returning the original land documents pertaining to survey No.TS 2676 and TS No.2677, Dhandupalayam, Periyakulam Town and Survey No.894, Pudukottai Village, Periyakulam Taluk even after repaying the entire loan amount.

2.         The complainant submitted that his mother when she was alive approached the 2^nd opposite party for loan to towards her company M/s. Wazeed and Co and on the advice of the 2^nd opposite party she managed to submit the property documents belonging to her well wishers namely; Mr. Kadher Mohideen and Mr. Mohideen Pitchai.  Further, the 2^nd opposite party sanctioned the loan and there occurred certain delay in the repayment of the loan for which, the 2^nd opposite party filed a Civil Suit in O.S. No.74/1983 in the Sub-Court, Periyakulam for recovery of the loan.  The complainant’s mother settled the loan amount by way of OTS to the opposite parties and consequently they promised to return the original land documents given as collateral security.  Inspite of the assurance of the opposite parties, the land documents were not returned by the opposite parties and the complainant’s mother was subject to severe mental agony and pressure from the third parties who had given the land documents.  The mother of the complainant passed away in the year 2010 and left with no other option, the complainant issued a legal notice dt.23.04.2011 requesting the opposite parties to return the land documents.   The opposite parties to utter shock of the complainant sent reply stating that there is still outstanding in the loan account.  Thus the complaint was filed alleging unfair trade practice and gross deficiency on the side of the opposite parties with a prayer to direct them to return the original land documents along with compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and with cost of the proceedings.

3.         The opposite parties filed version admitting the availing of loan by the complainant’s mother however denied that the entire loan amount was settled and they sought for the documentary proof for settlement of the loan account.  They denied that there is any negligence on their part and that they did not unlawfully withhold the original documents.  They submitted that they have the authority to with hold the documents until the entire dues are settled.  Thus, they sought for the dismissal of the complaint. 

4.         The complainant filed proof affidavit and submitted documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A4.  On the side of the opposite parties proof affidavit was alone filed and no document was marked. 

5.         The learned District Commission perusing the pleadings and documents filed by the complainant partly allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to return the land documents pertaining to TS 2676, TS 2677 of Thandupalayam, Periyakulam Town and Survey No.894 of Pudukottai Village given as collateral security along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.10,000/- as cost, holding that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.    Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite parties has preferred the present appeal. 

6.         Point for consideration:-

Whether the opposite party has committed deficiency in service in not returning the documents even after the entire loan amount was settled by the complainant and if so, to what relief the complainant is entitled?

7.         Point:-

Heard the Counsel for the appellant.  The respondent / complainant did not appear but had filed the written argument.  The learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the complaint filed before the District Commission, Chennai (North) is without jurisdiction as the cause of action has arise outside the jurisdiction of the said commission.  Further, it is argued that the complainant had committed default in the repayment of the loan amount for which, the opposite party had initiated legal proceedings by filing a suit in O.S. No.74/93 on the file of Hon’ble Subordinate Court, Periyakulam which was decreed and also execution proceedings were pending.   The Counsel further argued that in the impugned order passed by the District Commission the aspect of settlement of loan has not been properly considered.   Further the Counsel also argued that the complaint was filed belatedly i.e. after a period of 3 years i.e. on 26.05.2011 was clearly hit by limitation.  Thus the counsel sought for the appeal to be allowed. 

8.         Refuting the allegations made by the Counsel for appellant, the complainant / respondent had filed the written arguments submitting that the complainant had completely repaid the loan by way of one time settlement.  Hence, it is a clear case of res ipso loquitor where the documents filed by the complainant clearly proves that the opposite party had failed to handover the documents even after the complainant had completely repaid the loan amount.  Thus, he sought for the appeal to be dismissed. 

9.         We perused the pleadings and documents submitted by both the parties and also the impugned order passed by the District Commission.  The  factum of availment of loan by the complainant predecessor / mother from the 2^nd opposite party and there was some default in the repayment of the loan is not in dispute.  It is also admitted by both the parties that a Civil Suit in O.S. No.74/1983 in the Sub-Court, Periyakulam was filed by the opposite party against the complainant claiming the loan amount and the same was decreed.  On perusal of Ex.A1 & Ex.A2 dt.27.08.2008, we could see that the loan amount has been paid in entirety by way of One Time Settlement (OTS) on the side of complainant which was accepted by the opposite party and signed by the Senior Manager of the opposite parties where in, it has been clearly mentioned as follows:-

“We hereby acknowledge the receipt of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- being the repayment of loan under One Time Settlement in respect of the above said loan account – M/s. Wazeed & Co.

As you have paid the sum in full satisfaction of the loan account, we hereby withdraw all our claim in respect of Suit No.74/83, Sub Court, Periakulam and we give us our consent for release of securities in (1) TS 2676 & TS No.2677 Thandupalayam, Periakulam Town (2) S No.894 Pudukottai Village, Periakulam Taluk, both properties belonging to Mr. Kadar Mohideen and Mohideen Pitchai, Periakulam”.

Thus, considering the averments in the said document it has been clearly mentioned that the entire loan was cleared on the side of the complainant.  Thus, we are of the opinion that the opposite parties cannot further contend that there is some due with respect of repayment of loan by the complainant. 

10.       With regard to the allegation of jurisdiction, we are of the view the same is maintainable as Section 11 of Consumer Protection Act, vide clause 2 provides for the institution of the complaint within the local limits of jurisdiction where any one of the opposite party / ies resides in the following words:-

“(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits whose jurisdiction, -

1. The opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or (carries on business or has a branch office or) personally works for gain; or”

Thus when the 1^st opposite party has its Head Office at Chennai the ocmplaint is very well maintainable before the District Commission as it is filed.

11.       Hence, we are of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the District Commission holding that the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service in not returning the land documents pertaining to TS 2676, TS 2677 of Thandupalayam, Periyakulam Town and Survey No.894 of Pudukottai Village given as collateral security is proper and the award directing them to return the documents along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.10,000/- as cost is justified and the same is hereby confirmed. 

In the result, the appeal is dismissed devoid of any merits confirming the Order dt.30.07.2014 made in C.C. No.98/2011 on the file of District Commission, Chennai (North).   No order as to cost.

 

S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI                                                                         R. SUBBIAH             

          MEMBER                                                                                          PRESIDENT