| ORDER | Filed On:21.12.2012 Disposed On:22.07.201THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,THIRUVALLUPRESENT: THIRU. S. PANDIAN, B.SC., L.L.M : PRESIDENT TMT. S. SUJATHA, B.Sc., : MEMBER-I THIRU. V. VENKATESAN, M.A.B.Ed., M.B.A., M.Phil., B.L., : MEMBER-II Wednesday, the Day of 22nd July-2015CC. No. 39 / 2012 Mr. N. Gnana DhasS/o. Mr. Y. NesamaniResiding at No.8,Gandhi Street, S.S. Nagar Extension,Thirumullaivoyal,Chennai- 600 062. … Complainant. -Vs-The Branch Manager State Bank of IndiaAmbathur Branch, (Code No.987)Chennai-600 053. … Opposite PartyCounsel For Complainant : Mr. V. Gajapathy, AdvocateCounsel For Opposite Party : Mr.K.V. Srinivasan, , Advocate This Complaint is coming upon before us finally on 09.07.2015 in the presence Mr. V. Gajapathy, Advocate on the side of the complainant and Mr.K.V. Srinivasan, Advocate appeared on the side of the Opposite Party and upon hearing arguments on the side of both and perused the documents and evidence, this Forum delivered the following,ORDERPRONOUNCED BY THIRU. S. PANDIAN, PRESIDENTThis complaint is filed by the complainant U/S of the consumer protection act, 1986, to direct the opposite party to hand over the original Sale Deed dated.16.08.2001which was deposited for creating equitable mortgage and to pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- towards deficiency of service with cost.The brief facts of the complaint are as follows :1. The Complainant states that an Educational Loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) was obtained from the Opposite Party by the Complainant’s son Mr. G. Rajan Andrew for pursuing his studies in B.E. (Mechanical) Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) sanctioned under Educational Loan Scheme – Account No. 10403025912 was dispursed to him in Four installments of each Rs. 50,000/- on 07-09-2001, 13-06-2002, 18-06-2003 and on 09-06-2004. The complainant stood as a Guarantor for the Loan sanctioned as stated supra and created an Equitable Mortgage in favour of the Opposite party by Deposit of the Original Sale Deed Dated 16-08-2001 pertaining to the site and building thereon situated at Plot No. 8, in Survey No. 274/1 at Tirumullaivoyal Village, S.S. Nagar Extension, Thirumullaivoyal, Chennai-600 062.2. The Educational Loan availed has been regularly repaid, discharged and Loan Account closed on 08-04-2011. Inspite of the fact that the Educational Loan referred above had been discharged, the Title Deed Deposited has not been released to the Complainant inspite of his several personal requests, complaints to Opposite Party and to his higher officials. The Central Public Information Officer of the Opposite Party’s Bank has confirmed about the Loan closed by his Letter No. RBOIVNO-16-13 Dated 02-01-2012. This fact has been further confirmed by him through another Letter Dated 06-02-2012 under his Letter No. RBOIVNO-16-3416. Since the Educational Loan stated supra has been closed on 08-04-2011, the Opposite Party is bound to return the Original Title Deed to the Complainant. Though addressed to higher Bank authorities, unfortunately, the Title Deed has not been handed over to the Complainant insipte of his best efforts and several communications and complaints. That withholding the Title Deed By the Opposite Party without any valid reason particularly after the Educational Loans was closed, amounts to “Deficiency in service” on the part of the Opposite Party. Under these circumstances the Complainant issued Notice to the Opposite Party on 15-10-2012 calling upon him to immediately hand over the Original Sale Deed Dated 16-08-2001. Though the Opposite Party acknowledged the Notice and failed to comply with the Complainant’s demand. Hence this complaint is filed. Brief facts of the Written Version of the Opposite Party are as follows:3. The complainant approached the opposite party, for a sanction of education loan for his son and the complainant stood as a guardian and submitted a loan application on 05.08.2001 and the said loan was sanctioned on 03.09.2001 in the name of Complainant and his son (joint names) for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum with monthly rest. They singed and executed necessary loan documents for the said scheme on 03.09.2001.4. The repayment of loan will be commenced after 60 months for a period of 48 months from September 2006. The equated monthly interest (EMI) will be finalized depending upon the amount paid by the complainant during the period of 60 months. Based upon that the Opposite Party opened a loan account to the complainant bearing the A/c No. 01593010679 at the Branch and after the introduction of core banking system all the accounts were renumbered and were given new numbers. As per the clause 3 of the agreement, the complainant agreed for the change of interest rate, the complainant should have contacted the opposite party immediately after the period of course was completed namely September 2006 to get the EMI finalized. The actual repayment should have commenced from September 2006. But the complainant or his son did not contact the Opposite Party, on their own calculated the EMI as Rs. 4,500/- p.m. on the amount of Rs.2,11,435/- being the outstanding as on 03.06.2007 without taking into consideration the amount of interest due on the said date and started paying Rs.4,500/-p.m. As a result of which, the complainant were paying a lower EMI from 04.06.2007 nearly after 8 months of actual date of re-payment. 5. The actual repayment should have commenced from September 2006. The actual EMI was Rs. 5,819.09 on the outstanding of Rs.2,11,435/- for 46 months as on 07.05.2007. Meanwhile SBI, Recovery Branch (SARB) has been established at Chennai for the effective and expeditious recovery of the outstanding and bad debits in the various branches of State Bank of India in the State of Tamil Nadu, which have been classified as “non-performing” (NPA) in accordance with the directions of Reserve Bank of India, including the matters connected with institution of legal proceedings for the said purpose. In terms of the instruction, if any loan account becomes NPA (Non Performing Assets), the system by default stop applying interest to the said loan account from the date of NPA. We, therefore manually calculate the interest from the date of NPA to the date of filing of the suit. There is a procedure for adjudging a loan account as NPA issued from time to time by the RBI. Even, if any account is written-off, the complainant is not absolved from his liability. The write-off is internal accounting procedure to clean up the balance sheet of the bank. The write-off is resorted to even in cases where the bank has not exhausted all the avenues for recovery of dues. The write-off does not affect the rights of the Bank from proceeding against the complainant for the recovery of the dues. In other words, the complainant cannot take shelter under ‘Write –Off’ to avoid paying dues. The opposite party has every right to initiate legal proceedings against the complainant for the recovery of the dues as per judgment of the supreme court. 7. The complainant’s loan account being irregular, their loan account was treated as ‘ Non-Performing’ (NPA) on 03.06.2006 and was migrated to SBI, Recovery Branch (SARB) on 17.03.2008 for further course of action. However, the complainant made a repayment of Rs.1,000/- on 07.05.2011. The opposite party has been demanding repayment orally and by written reminders. The Recovery Branch (SARB) also issued a Notice dated 19.09.2011 demanding Rs. 95,472/- and the same was acknowledged and replied by the complainant by his letter dated 04.10.2011 making false allegations against the opposite party.8. Hiding all these facts, the complainant without paying the loan amount having the knowledge of the pending of the suit before the City Civil Court, he has approached this Hon’ble Court. The said Education Loan was not discharged and hence the Title Deeds were not released. 9. The Loan is not closed and pending suit this opposite party is unable to return the original Title Deeds which was given as collateral security for the said loan. There is no deficiency penace of service on the part of the opposite party. Therefore, the complaint to be dismissed with exemplary cost. 10. On the side of the complainant, the proof affidavit filed as his evidence and Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 are marked. Similarly, on the side of the opposite party, proof affidavit filed no document filed. 11. At this juncture, the vital point before this forum for determination is as to:-(1)Whether there is any deficiency of service as narrated in the complaint on the part of the opposite party?(2)Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?12. Written Arguments submitted by the complainant. 13. Point No.1:- According to the case of the complainant, it is stated that the opposite party has not come forward to return the original sale deed of the complainant’s property which was deposited and created Equitable Mortgage at the time of availing Educational Loan for his son’s education even the said loan has been closed on 08.4.2011 itself and not been handed over the Title Deed to the complainant inspite of his best efforts and several communication and thereby opposite party has committed the deficiency of service. While so, the opposite party denied the allegation by stating that the Loan became NPA and therefore the entire documents have been taken by the SBI recovery branch for further course of action and also the complainant has approached to the highest forum and hence the Opposite Party is not thing to do. Further, it is contended that even if any account is written – off, the complainant is not observed from his liability and the opposite party has correctly proceeded as per norms of RBI in case of NPA Loan and therefore there is no deficiency penace of service on the part of the opposite party and in fact the complainant is making false allegation against this opposite party. 14. At this Juncture, it is well settled principle of Law that the complainant has to fulfill the initial burden of proof that is, the complainant is bounden duty to prove his case by means of cogent and consistent, evidence. At the outset, on going through the proof affidavit, it is learnt that the alleged Educational Loan was discharged by the complainant and in turn the Loan Account was closed on 08.04.2011 and the same has been confirmed by the Central Public Information Officer by specifically stating that, “the Loan has already been closed, which is marked as Ex.A3. Further it is seen from Ex.A11, the payment chalan clearly reveals the fact of remittance of the entire balance due towards the said education loan. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that Ex.A10, the statement of said Loan Account plays a vital document which clearly stated shows that on 09.06.2011 there was a balance of a sum of Rs. 1,435/- and the Loan Account, has been “Write Off” and the balance is 0.00. Therefore, it goes without saying that the very statement of Account furnished to the complainant shows that the Loan has been closed. 15. It is further seen from the evidence placed by the complainant that inspite of the fact that the said Educational Loan had been discharged and despite of sending several communication by means of letter and notices viz Ex.A1, A2, A4, to Ex.A9 and in personal request, to the opposite party as well as to higher officials, the original Title Deed deposited has not been released and hence, the complainant is constrained to file this complaint. From the above facts, it is clearly evident that how the opposite party has failed to discharge his duties to the customer and hence there is a clear deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. 16. At this point of time, on perusal of the proof affidavit and written version, it is learnt that though the opposite party has categorically admitted that the Loan Account was Written off but contented that it will not absolute the loanee from his liability which is a strange one. It is pertinent to say that once the loan Account Written off which means that the said account closed. The said fact has been shown in ExA10. So, once the Account is closed, as rightly pointed out by the complainant that it is not open to contend that the liability is not absolute. Therefore, the contention raised by the opposite party in the aspect is not sustainable and thereby it has lost its merits. 17. At this juncture, the next point to be taken into consideration is, as to whether the complainant has not disclosed about the proceedings of the civil suit before the city civil court, Chennai. In fact, as per the memo filed by the complainant dated. 09.07.2015 along with the order copy in OS. 6955/2014 it is crystal clear that the said suit was filed of complaint before this Forum and the same was dismissed for default on 27.02.2015. That itself shows the mental attitude of the opposite party and clearly shows the intention of dragging the matter pertaining to this complaint. 18. In the light of the above facts and observation, this forum, without any hesitation to hold that there is a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and thereby caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant. Thus the point No.1 is answered accordingly. 19. Point No. 2:- As per the decision taken in the point. 1 there is no hindrance to hold that the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed in the complaint with reasonable compensation and cost. Thus the point No.2 is answered accordingly. In the Result, this complaint is allowed in part. Accordingly, the opposite party is directed to return the original Sale Deed dated. 16.08.2001 to the complainant within a week from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order and to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) to the complainant towards deficiency of service and Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) towards cost. The above amount shall be payable within one month from the date of the 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 directly 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 the 22nd July-2015.Sd/-*** Sd/-*** Sd/-*** MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT List of ComplainantDocuments: Ex.A1 Dt. 17.11.2011 -Xerox Copy of Acknowledgement by the Deputy General Manager S.B.I. Chennai to the Complainant Ex.A2 Dt. 23.12.2011 -Acknowledgement by the Banking Ombudsman to the Complainant. Ex.A3 Dt. 06.02.2012 - Acknowledgement by the Assistant General Manager, S.B.I. Chennai by the Complainant’s Son. Ex.A4 Dt. 17.05.2012 -Xerox Copy of Letter addressed to the Assistant General Manager, S.B.I. Chennai by the Complainant. Ex.A5 Dt. 11.06.2012- Xerox Copy of Letter addressed to the General Manager (NW1,) State Bank of India, Chennai for release of Title Deed of the property Ex.A6 Dt. 23.08.2012 -Xerox Copy of Acknowledgement by the Deputy General Manager, (Customer Service) S.B.I. to the Complainant. Ex.A7 Dt. 15.10.2012 - Xerox Notice to the Opposite Party by the Complainant.Ex.A8 Dt. 23.11.2012 - Xerox Copy of Acknowledgement by the Post MasterEx.A9 Dt. 02.01.2012 - Xerox Copy of Acknowledgment from S.B.I. from Central Public Information Officer to the Complainant.Ex.A10 Dt. - - Statement of Accounts given by the Opposite PartyEx.A11 Dt. 08.04.2011- Chalan for Rs. 3,435/- paid by the complainant to the opposite partyList of Opposite Party Documents: -Nil- Sd/-*** Sd/-*** Sd/-*** MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT | |
