Date of Filling :30.12.2013
Date of Disposal :05.11.2015
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, THIRUVALLUR
PRESENT: THIRU. S.PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M., … PRESIDENT
TMT. S.SUJATHA,B.Sc., … MEMBER-I
CC.71/2013
Tuesday, the 5th day of November 2015
P.Umamaheswari,
D/o K.Purushothaman,
Plot No.34, Lakshmipuram Street,
Thiruvallur – 602 001. …Complainant
/Vs/
The Manager,
Canara Bank, JN Road,
Thiruvallur – 602 001. …Opposite Party
….
This Complaint is coming upon before us finally on 16.10.2015 in the
Presence of Thiru.D.S.Prabha, Advocate on the side of the complainant and Thiru.T.V.Suresh, Advocate for the opposite party and upon hearing arguments on the side of the complainant and perused the documents and evidence, this Forum delivered the following,
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY THIRU. S. PANDIAN, PRESIDENT
This Complaint is filed by the complainant U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party seeking direction that the opposite party has to return all the original documents to the complainant, to pay compensation of Rs.18,00,000/- for financial loss and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- for physical and mental agony.
The Brief averments of the complaint as follows:
1. The complainant and her co-owner Jameela availed housing loan, vide A/c No.2761619001530 in the year 2004 for construction of house at the above said address. The opposite party bank after verifying and having received the documents, sanctioned a loan of total amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and they had released Rs.1,45,000/- in different instalments. At the time of availing the loan, the complainant and the opposite party entered into an agreement to return back the loan amount in 60 instalments. She was regular in repaying the loan amount with the interest. Without any break in between, she completed her loan in January. 2010, with that effect the opposite party also issued statement of account which states ‘No Due’ on 21.01.2010, that the complainant had repaid her entire loan amount with interest.
2. In the year 2006, i.e. on 27.08.2006, the co-owner Jameela died due to illness. Therefore, after repayment of the entire loan amount in the year 2010, the complainant requested the opposite party to handover the original documents to her, which was submitted at the time of availing loan. Since January 2010, the complainant through phone and direct visits made several attempts to receive back the original documents from the opposite parties. But her attempt was made futile. At last, in the year 2013 the opposite party demanded the complainant to get ‘No Objection’ from the legal heir of the deceased Jameela. To comply their demand the legal heir of deceased Jameela, i.e. the mother of deceased Jameels, Mrs.Aladia Begam released her share of the property to and in favour of the complainant on 20.03.2013, vide Document No.3858/2013 registered in the SRO of Thiruvallur. The complainant informed the same to the opposite party vide letter dated 10.05.2013 and requested for the original documents to complete all other formalities related to the property i.e. to change the title in property Tax, water tax, electricity tax, etc., in her name.
3. Even after producing relevant records and making a lot of phone calls and direct visits, the opposite party made the complainant to run from pillar to post for the reason best known to the opposite party. Because, the original documents are not with the complainant, she could not alienate the property. Therefore the third party cancelled the sale agreement and had taken the agreement amount with interest from the complainant on 03.10.2013. Thus the complainant incurred financial loss and because, of the negligent act of the opposite parties the complainant could not alienate the property. Her effort to get back the original documents from them became vain and she is helpless to proceed further without the original documents of her property. Till now the opposite parties did not hand over the original documents to the complainant. There is a deficiency of services on the part of the opposite party as the service has been imperfect, in adequate in quality, nature and manner of performance, which is required to be performed by them for the consideration received. Hence this complaint.
The contention of the written version of the opposite party as brief as follows:
4. The complaint is not a consumer u/s 2( b,c,d) of the Consumer
Protection Act and the alleged claim involved in the complaint is not a consumer dispute. The opposite party denies that there was any negligence a deficiency of service as alleged in the complaint. That the loan transaction sated in the complaint admitted. Since the loan was obtained by the complainant and one Jameela of Tiruvallur and since the said Jameela died during the loan term, this opposite party asked the complaint to get document for claim of her as owner for the entricity of the property. The complaint got the document of registered release only on 20.03.2013. That being so, her claim or asking from 2010 cannot be believed at all and false.
5. The opposite party submits, due to internal arrangement of shifting of
locations in the office, the files got misplaced is the office and the staff of opposite party are located, after compliance, the same will be handed over to the complainant without any delay. That the claim of monitory less, hardship, physical ailments, pains, sufferings, mental agony, are all false and made for the claim. The cause of action alleged is also not true. Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed.
6. On the side of the complainant the proof affidavit submitted as his evidence and Exhibit A1 to A7 are marked. Similarly, on the side of the opposite party proof affidavit is filed but no documents marked on his side.
7. At this juncture, the point for the consideration before this Forum is:
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party as alleged in the complaint?
- To what other reliefs, the complainant entitled to?
8. Written arguments filed on the side of the complainant in spite of
sufficient time Was given, the opposite party did not utilize the same and not filed written arguments and thereby it is closed.
9. Point 1: According to the case of the complainant is that the loan sanctioned to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- in favour of the complainant and of her co-owner Jameela, in the year 2004 for construction of her house has been closed in January 2010 in 60 instalments and to that effect ‘No due certificate’, was issued on 21.01.2010 by the opposite party. In spite of repeated demands, the opposite party did not handover the original documents to the complainant and thereby the opposite party caused at hardship and financial loss to the complainant. Therefore, the opposite party is liable to pay compensation as made in the complaint.
10. In order to prove the above fact, the complainant produced Exhibit A1
to A7, before this Forum. In such circumstances, it is learnt from the written version as well as the proof affidavit filed by the opposite party, that the complainant is not a consumer as u/s 2 (b,c,d) of the Consumer Protection Act and in fact the complainant produce the document of registered release only on 20.03.2013 and thereby the agreement made by the complainant from 2010 cannot believe and all false. It is further stated that due to internal arrangement of shifting of locations in the office, this files got misplaced is the office and the staff of the opposite party are located, after compliance, the same will be handed over to the complainant without any delay and therefore there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and there is no cause of action.
11. At the outset, on careful perusal of the rival submissions placed before this Forum on either side, it is crystal clear that the opposite party has not returned original documents which were submitted by the complainant during the time of sanctioning of housing loan by the opposite party, till the filing of this complaint and even till now. Whereas, it is categorically admitted by the opposite party that the files filed got misplaced in the office and handover to the complainant after traced out, the same which clearly reveals the fact of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, since the reason sated by the opposite party is not valid one.
12. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that the contention raised by the
opposite party that the complainant submitted the document on registered release deed only on 20.03.2013 and even thereafter the opposite party has not taken any steps to handover the original documents to the complainant within the reasonable time and therefore there is an inordinate delay occurred on the part of the opposite party. Therefore it cannot be disputed that the complainant incurred much hardship, financial loss and mental agony due to the attitude of the opposite party which cannot be easily thrown out. From the foregoing facts and circumstances, the complainant proved his case through relevant and consistent evidence. Hence, this forum has concluded that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Thus the point no.1 is answered accordingly.
13. In view of the conclusion arrived in the point no.1, the complainant is entitled for return of original documents from the opposite party and also entitled for reasonable compensation with cost. Thus the point no.1 is answered accordingly.
In the result, this complaint is allowed in part. Accordingly, the opposite party is directed to return all the original documents to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) for causing mental agony due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and with cost of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand only). Total Rs.12,000/-(Rupees twelve thousand only)
The above amount shall be payable within one month from the date of
receipt of the copy of the order, failing which the said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% P.A. till the date of payment.
Dictated by the president to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized
by her, correctly by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this 5th November 2015.
Sd/-**** Sd/-****
MEMBER I PRESIDENT
List of Documents filed by the complainant
Ex.A1/Dt.28.02.2008: Xerox copy of the letter sent by the complainant to the opposite
party.
Ex.A2/Dt.21.01.2010: Xerox copy of the statement of account of the complainant given
by the opposite party.
Ex.A3/Dt.04.04.2008: Xerox copy of the Heir certificate of Jameela.
Ex.A4/Dt.10.05.2013: Xerox copy of the letter sent by the complainant to the opposite
party.
Ex.A5/Dt.15.07.2013: Xerox copy of the letter sent by the complainant to the opposite
party.
Ex.A6/Dt.03.10.2013: Cancellation of Agreement Deed.
Ex.A7/Dt.04.10.2013: Xerox copy of the encumbrance certificate of the said property.
List of documents of the opposite party: Nil.
Sd/-**** Sd/-****
MEMBER I PRESIDENT
