Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/440/2015

M/s.V.Vaithianathan - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Branch Manager, State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Party in Person

27 Jun 2022

ORDER

Date of Complaint Filed:08.07.2015

Date of Reservation     :21.06.2022

Date of Order              :27.06.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:  TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                            : PRESIDENT

                     THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,            :  MEMBER  I 

                     THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,     : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.440/2015

MONDAY, THE 27^th DAY OF JUNE2022

V.Vaithianathan,

No.30(Old No.18) Second Cross Street,

West CIT Nagar,

Chennai – 600 035.                                                                                                                                                 …Complainant

 

-Vs-

 

Branch Manager,

State Bank of India,

First Main Road,

C.I.T Nagar,

Chennai – 600 035.                                                                                                                                                …Opposite Party

 

******

Complainant                                     : Party in Person

Counsel for the Opposite Party        : M/s. K. Kumaran

 

        On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Complainant in person and the Counsel for Opposite Party, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by the President Tmt.B.JIJAA, M.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to direct the Opposite Party State Bank of India C.I.T.Nagar to return the documents where the loan was applied and discharge certificate of loan issued and for compensation of Rs.50,000/-.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

The Complainant had availed loan of Rs.4.00 lakhs for improvement of his Flat No.1,III Floor Razack Street, Saidapet, Chennai by mortgaging the said property. The entire loan was discharged by the Complainant on 17.06.2009. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, C.I.T.Nagar had issued a letter dated 01.02.2010 to the Assistant General Manager, (AGM) Retail Asset Central Processing Centre, Anna Salai, Chennai -2 to hand over the document to the Complainant. But the AGM did not return the document. The Complainant wrote a letter to the Branch Manager, SBI, C.I.T.Nagar for which no reply was received. The Complainant issued another reminder to the Branch Manager on 27.12.2010. The Branch Manager issued another letter to AGM on 28.07.2011. The Complainant was orally informed by the staff of AGM that the document had been lost. The Complainant wrote a letter dated 05.04.2012 and again on 25.10.2012 wrote to DGM on the procedure adopted for restoring the lost document. Since there was no response the Complainant gave a notice dated 03.09.2014 to the Branch Manager C.I.T.Nagar, for which there was no reply. It is due to the lethargic attitude of the Opposite Party, no reply was sent in a case which is six years old besides a case of lost documents. All these events show their negligence and callousness of duty towards customer. Hence the Complaint.

3. Written Version filed by the Opposite Parties in brief is as follows:-

        The Complainant had availed a Housing Term Loan of Rs.4,00,000/- from the Opposite Party at its CIT Branch, Chennai and he had on 28.03.2002 created equitable mortgage of his residential property situate at Flat No.1, III Floor, Abdul Razack Street, Chennai – 600 015 as security for that loan. The Complainant had deposited with the Opposite Party the Sale Deed dated 18.01.1991 registered as Document No.67 of 1991. In pursuance of the introduction of core banking computer solutions, the banking operations of the State Bank of India were in the process of centralization and accordingly Retail Assets Central Processing Centres (RACPC) had been created to handle the loan accounts and all documents relating to those accounts in various branches in Chennai City were directed to be transferred to the RACPC from then onwards.  Similarly, the Opposite Party has established the Stressed Assets Resolution Branch (SARB) at Chennai for effective recovery of outstandings and other bad debts. The Complainant had discharged the entire dues under the said Housing Term Loan on 17.06.2009 and sought for return of the title deed of his mortgaged property. Despite diligent searches made by the Opposite Party at its CIT Branch, RACPC and SARB in Chennai, the loan documents and title deed of the mortgaged property of the Complainant were not immediately traceable. The aforesaid factual position was duly apprised to the Complainant, and admittedly the Opposite Party has offered to obtain certified copy of the untraceable title deed of the mortgaged property at its cost and give an undertaking to hand over the documents when found and to indemnify against any loss the Complainant may suffer of any claim being made by any other person on the basis of possession of the aforesaid untraceable documents. However, the Complainant did not accept the said offer and instead filed the present litigation. The Complainant has not suffered any loss or injury to be compensated. Hence the Complaint is to be dismissed.

4.      The Complainant filed his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-8 were marked. The Opposite Party filed their Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Opposite Party, documents Ex.B-1 and  Ex.B-2 were marked.

5.    Points for Consideration:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

Point No.1 :-

Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the Exhibits of documents filed by either side. The undisputed facts are that the Complainant had availed Housing Loan from the Opposite Party for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- by creating equitable mortgage of his property at Flat No.1, III Floor, Abdul Razack Street, Chennai – 600 015 as security for that loan and the Complainant had deposited with the Opposite Party the Sale Deed dated 18.01.1991 registered as Document No.67 of 1991 as found in Ex.A-1. It is evident from Ex.A-2 that the Complainant had paid the entire Housing Loan. On 17.06.2009 which is also admitted by the Opposite Party. As such the Complainant had requested the Opposite Party to hand over the Original Title Deed deposited by the Complainant with the Opposite Party vide Exs.A-4 to Ex.A-7. However, the Opposite Party neither responded nor returned the said original document.

        The Opposite Party contended that the Complainant had discharged the entire dues under the said Housing Term Loan on 17.06.2009 and sought for return of the title deed of his mortgaged property. Despite diligent searches made by the Opposite Party at CIT Branch, RACPC and SARB in Chennai, the loan documents and title deeds of the mortgaged property of the Complainant were not traceable. The Opposite Party has offered to obtain certified copy of the untraceable title deed of the mortgaged property and give an undertaking to hand over the documents when found and to indemnify against any loss the Complainant may suffer of any claim being made by any other person on the basis of possession of the aforesaid untraceable documents. Therefore, as contended by the Complainant, the Opposite Party after having received the entire loan amount have failed to return the entire Original Title Deed to the Complainant which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party, causing mental agony and hardship to the Complainant.

        Therefore we are of the considered view that the Opposite Party by not returning back the original Sale Deed dated 18.01.1991 registered as Document No.67 of 1991  which was handed over by the Complainant at the time of availing Housing Term Loan on 28.03.2002 clearly amounts to deficiency of service. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered against the Opposite Party.

 

Point No.2:-

        One of the main relief sought for by the Complainant is to return back the original Sale Deed dated 18.01.1991 registered as Document No.67 of 1991 which was handed over by the Complainant at the time of availing Housing Term Loan on 28.03.2002. Admittedly, on 17.06.2009 the Complainant has cleared the Housing Term loan with the Opposite Party and he had requested the Opposite Party to hand over the original title deed. Steps has not been taken by the Opposite Party to secure the interest of the Complainant in respect of the missing Document No.67 of 1991 as mentioned in their written version till date, further had admitted that the Opposite Parties had searched for the missing of Document No.67 of 1991 at the Opposite Party’s Branch, Retail Assets Central Processing Centres (RACPC) and Stressed Assets Resolution Branch (SARB) at Chennai and could not be found. Hence it is clear that the Opposite Party have committed deficiency of service in not returning back the original document as submitted by the Complainant. In the said circumstances as the Document No.67 of 1991 is found to be non traceable, we are of the considered view that the Opposite Party be directed to take alternate steps to secure the interest of the Complainant by adopting the legal procedures in obtaining missing Document No.67 of 1991, Sale Deed dated 18.01.1991 registered as ng  in the manner known to law  within 8 weeks from the date of order, on failure to do so, the Opposite Parties shall compensate to the Complainant for not returning back the missing Document No.67 of 2002. Accordingly point No.2 is answered in favour of the complainant.

Point No.3          :-

        As the reliefs sought for is granted in part, the Complainant is not entitled for any other reliefs.

In the result, this complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Party is directed to take alternate steps to secure the interest of the Complainant in respect of the missing Sale Deed dated 18.01.1991 bearing Document No.67/1991 in the manner known to law within 8 weeks, failing compliance,  the Opposite Party is directed jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to the Complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) as compensation towards the sufferings and mental agony to the Complainant, within 8 weeks from the date of this order.

If above amounts is not paid within 8 weeks, the said amounts shall be paid with interest at the rate of 6% p.a from the date of order till the date of payment.

In the result this complaint is allowed.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 27^th day of June 2022.

        

S. NANDAGOPALAN                                                     T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                                                   B.JIJAA

MEMBER II                                                                             MEMBER I                                                      PRESIDENT

 

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	28-03-2002	Loan Sanction Order
Ex.A2	20-11-2009	Loan closure on 17-06-2009 statement.
Ex.A3	01-03-2010	Letter issued by Branch Manager C.I.T Nagar for return of document to Assistant General Manager, Retail Assessment Central Processing Unit with statement of Account.
Ex.A4	27-12-2010	Letter to Branch Manager SBI, C.I.T Nagar with R.P & A.D.
Ex.A5	28-07-2011	Request by Branch Manager SBI C.I.I Nagar to Assistant General Manager (AGM).
Ex.A6	05-04-2012	Letter to Deputy General Manager (DGM) State Bank of India-local head office Chennai-1 for loss of document.
Ex.A7	25-10-2012	Letter to DGM, local head office shocking reply for queries.
Ex.A8	03-09-2014	Final Letter to Branch Manager SBI, CIT Nagar for time bound letter R.P & A.D.

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Party:-

 

Ex.B1	28.03.2002	Extract from Register of Equitable Mortgage
Ex.B2		Draft of Deed of Indemnity and Undertaking proposed to be executed

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN                                                         T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                                                          B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                                                                         MEMBER I                                                             PRESIDENT