Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/634/2014

Rajinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab and Sind Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Deepak Aggarwal

21 Sep 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/634/2014
Date  of  Institution	:	19/09/2014
Date   of   Decision	:	21/09/2015

 

 

 

 

 

1.   Rajinder Singh son of Sh. Surjan Singh;

2.   Gurpreet Singh son of Sh. Rajinder Singh;

Both residents of House No. 2324, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.

 

….Complainants

Vs.

 

Punjab and Sind Bank, SCO No. 203, Sector 24-D, Chandigarh through its Manager.

 

…… Opposite Party 

 

BEFORE:   SH. P.L. AHUJA                    PRESIDENT

          MRS.SURJEET KAUR             MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA          MEMBER

 

 

For Complainants	:	Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate.
For OP	:	Sh. Neeraj Sahni, Advocate.

 

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

 

 

          The facts, in brief are, that complainant No.1 availed an educational loan of Rs.10 lacs from the Opposite Party on 14.1.2011 for his son i.e. complainant No.2 for pursuing diploma in Information Technology (Support and operation) from Tasman International Academies, Auckland, New Zealand.  It was stated that for availing the said loan from the Opposite Party, on its demand, the complainants, deposited certain documents with it i.e.   original title documents of plot No.2324, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh, standing in the name of complainant No.1 (50% share)  and 50% share in the name of his brother Dharminder Singh, Redemption Deed dated 3.7.1992, Sale Deed dated 5.5.1965 and valuation report dated 13.8.2009 by Advocate Sunil Mahajan and Associates.  It was further stated that the said loan was repayable six months after completion of course, in sixty installments, which was duly paid by the complainants. It was alleged that the Opposite Party-Bank issued NOC dated 10.7.2014  after a lapse of 2 years from the date of clearing of the educational loan but did not return the original documents deposited by the complainants with the Opposite Party despite several requests. It was further stated that due to non return of the original documents, a dispute arose, in the family of the complainants and the brother of complainant No.1 could not   avail some loan due to the reason that documents of title were in the custody of the Opposite Party.  It was further submitted that despite numerous requests the Opposite Party failed to redress their grievance. It was further stated that the aforesaid act of the Opposite Party, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainants, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs was filed.

 

2.     Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party, seeking its version of the case.

3.     The Opposite Party in its reply admitted sanction of loan vide sanction No. 121/10 dated 4.12.2010. It was stated that there was a big fraud in the Opposite Party Bank in the year 2012 and the complainants approached the Opposite Party for issuance of No Due Certificate in the year 2014.  The loan file was initially not found in the branch of the Opposite but on furnishing copy of sanction letter by the complainants the Opposite Party issued NOC to the complainants. It was further stated that the complainants never demanded any documents from the Opposite Party nor the Opposite Party ever sought such documents from the complainants as security of the loan, in question.  It was further stated that the Opposite Party maintain sanction register and property deed register   in respect of sanctioning any loan in respect of security taken against the loan and copies of relevant extract whereof has been annexed as Annexure R-6 and R-7.   It was further stated that it is apparent from Annexure R-6 and R-7 that the loan, in question, was against personal security and no document of property was taken against the said loan. It was further stated that the complainants were also part of fraud taken place in the year 2012 as the Branch Manager Rajinder Singh Kalsi himself adjusted the account in question, by making repayment through his current account and removed the loan documents from the branch. It was further submitted that the complainants obtained the loan with the connivance of Branch Manager Rajinder Singh Kalsi illegally and unlawfully and caused loss to the Opposite Party Bank. It was further stated, that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining allegations were denied, being wrong. 

 

4.     The complainants filed a rejoinder, wherein they reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Party.

 

5.     Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

6.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record, along with the written arguments filed on behalf of both the sides. 

 

7.     The case of the complainants is that complainant No.1 availed an educational loan of Rs.10 lacs from the Opposite Party for his son i.e. complainant No.2. For this purpose complainant No.1 deposited original title of his house bearing No.2324, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh alongwith other relevant documents required by Opposite Party vide Annexure C-1. No Due Certificate Annexure C-2 was issued on 10.7.2014. However, the Opposite Party did not return the original documents of the property to the complainant, on the ground that these documents were never taken by Opposite Party as security against the loan in question. On the other hand, the loan was sanctioned against the personal security only.

 

 

8.     The learned counsel for the Opposite Party has submitted that the complainant was sanctioned an educational loan for his son against the personal security as per Annexure R-6 and R-7. Therefore, no such document as alleged by the complainant was ever taken by it as security against the loan in question. It has further been urged that the loan account of the complainant was closed in the year 2012 and at that time no loan file was found in the branch of the complainant and therefore, NOC Annexure C-2 was given to the complainant on 10.7.2014.

 

9.     We have carefully considered the rival contention of the parties. It is undoubtedly clear from clause 4 of Annexure C-1 letter dated 14.1.2011 written by OP to the complainant, which is reproduced as under that alongwith personal guarantee the house in question was also equitably mortgaged:-

 

“Security: Equitable mortgaged of House No. 2334, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh & third Party guarantee of S. Amrik Singh R/o 24081-Mundi Complex, Sector 70, Mohali.”

 

          An equitable mortgage could not be effected without the title documents of the house. Definitely the house of the complainant was mortgaged by the OP, which is clear from afore-extracted relevant clause of the letter written by OP to the complainant but the Opposite Party concealed this fact from this Forum and kept denying in its whole written statement that no such documents was ever asked for by it as security, which is definitely an unfair trade practice on its part. It is crystal clear from Annexure C-2 that after clearance of loan the Opposite Party issued no due certificate on 10.7.2014 that too after lapse of two years but it still did not return the property documents in question to the complainant. Once the complainant had cleared the loan amount, it was the bounden duty of the Opposite Party to return him the property documents or if those were misplaced or lost the OP should have lodged FIR/DDR with the police about the loss of the property documents rather than denying that the same were not with it. In the absence of the documents of title, we agree with the contention of the complainant that he has suffered a lot of mental agony and physical harassment due to the dispute in his family as he was co-owner of the house alongwith his brother.

 

10.      In view of the foregoing, we are of the opinion that the OP is firstly required to return the property documents to the complainant and in case the same have been misplaced by it then to lodge an FIR/DDR with the police about the loss and to publish an endorsement in two newspapers about the loss of title documents of the property of the complainant. OP is also required to give a certificate to the complainant about the loss of the original documents and to provide all assistance to the complainant and reimburse the expenses for obtaining the certified/duplicate copies of the title deed from the concerned department to the complainant. The complainant has suffered immense agony and harassment on account of non-returning of original title of the property by the OP. Accordingly, we are of the view that the complainant is certainly entitled to get compensation from the OP for harassment, financial loss and deficiency in service on its part.

 

11.      For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is allowed. OP is directed:-

 

1. To return the original title and all other relevant documents of House No.2324, Sector  22-C, Chandigarh deposited by the complainant with it and in the event of its failure, to issue an appropriate certificate to the complainant stating that the various documents received by it in respect of the house in question have been lost/misplaced by it. OP shall also lodge an FIR/DDR with the police about the loss of the documents. OP shall also get published advertisements in two national daily newspapers about the loss of title documents of the property of the complainant at its own expenses.  OP shall also write to the concerned departments about the loss of documents and reimburse the expenses in obtaining the certified/duplicate copies from them to the complainant. OP would also render all necessary assistance to the complainant in getting the record straightened with the Registrar, where the sale deed was registered. OP would also take all other steps as may be required by the concerned authorities to safeguard the interest of the complainant.

 

2. To make payment of an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation for deficiency in service and negligence on its part on account of the loss of the original title deed and other related documents of the complainant.

 

iii)   To make payment of an amount of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant towards litigation expenses.

 

12.      This order shall be complied with by the OP within two months from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the OP shall be liable to make payment of expenses which may be incurred by the complainant for executing the title deed in his name with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint, till realization, apart from the compensation and costs of litigation, as mentioned above.

 

13.      The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced

21.9.2015              

Sd/-

(P.L. AHUJA)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

 (SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER