Kerala

StateCommission

A/13/226

A. FAROOK AND OTHERS - Complainant(s)

Versus

SENIOR BRANCH MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK - Opp.Party(s)

14 Jan 2015

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACADU. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NOs.226/13 & 235/13

JUDGMENT DATED:14.01.2015

PRESENT:

HON.JUSTICE.P.Q.BARKATHALI       : PRESIDENT

SHRI.V.V. JOSE                                                : MEMBER

 

APPEAL NO.226/2013

1.  A.Farook, S/o.Abdul Razak,

     15/589, Sanjay Nagar,                       

     Kunnathurmedu, Palakkad-13

 

2.  Iqbal, S/o.Abdul Razak,            -          Appellants/ Complainants

     15/589, Sanjay Nagar,

     Kunnathurmedu, Palakkad-13

 

3.  Mrs.Hathoon, W/o.Farook,

     1/313, Rose Land,

     Thannissery Post, Palakkad.

 

(By Adv: Sri.Dhananjayan)

Vs

1.  Senior Branch Manager,

     Syndicate Bank, Melamury

     Palakkad.

                                                    -         Respondents/  Opposite parties

2.  The  Manager, Syndicate Bank, 

     Head Office, Post Box No.1,

     Manipal 576104

     Udupi District, Karnataka.

     (By Adv: M/s M.Sugadhakumar & Dhanya Sugadhan)                                                         

      APPEAL NO.235/2013

1.  Senior Branch Manager,

     Syndicate Bank, Melamury

     Palakkad.               

                    

2.  The  Manager, Syndicate Bank,          -         Appellants/ Complainants

     Head Office, Post Box No.1,

     Manipal 576104

     Udupi District, Karnataka.

 

     (By Adv: M/s M.Sugadhakumar & Dhanya Sugadhan)                                                         

 

                                                                Vs

1.  A.Farook, S/o.Abdul Razak,

     15/589, Sanjay Nagar,                        

     Kunnathurmedu, Palakkad-13

 

2.  Iqbal, S/o.Abdul Razak,

     15/589, Sanjay Nagar,              -          Respondents/  Opposite parties

     Kunnathurmedu, Palakkad-13

 

3.  Mrs.Hathoon, W/o.Farook,

     1/313, Rose Land,

     Thannissery Post, Palakkad.

 

(By Adv: Sri.Dhananjayan)

 

COMMON  JUDGMENT

 HON.JUSTICE.SHRI. P.Q.BARKATH ALI : PRESIDENT

          Both these appeals arise out of order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palakkad in CC.No.178/2011 dated 31/01/2013.  A.235/13  is filed by the opposite parties and A.226/2013 is filed by the complainant.

          2.      The case of the complainants as testified by PW1, 1^st complainant and as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:  Complainants 1 and 2 availed an overdraft facility from opposite party No.1 Bank  for which complainant No.3 stood as a guarantor by mortgaging the original deed No.2108/2004 of Sub Registrar Office, Koduvayur along with other documents.  Complainants approached the 1^st opposite party for clearing the outstanding dues during June – 2011.  The 1^st opposite party was reluctant to close the account and return the original title deeds.  On 11/08/2011 the bank informed complainants that the title deeds were misplaced and it will be traced out within a week.  Even thereafter 1^st opposite party did not close the loan account or returned the title deeds.  To the lawyer notice dated 26/08/2011, 1^st opposite party sent a reply admitting the loss of the title deeds.  By the loss of the title deeds complainants have suffered heavy loss.  There is clear deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.  Therefore complainant filed the complaint claiming a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- and  directing the opposite parties to issue certified copies with proper indemnity bond.

          3.      First opposite party is Senior Manager, Syndicate Bank, Palakkad.  2^nd opposite party is Manager of its Head Office, Manipal.  They filed their version before the Forum contending thus.  The complaint is not maintainable as the loan is still pending.  It is admitted that the original deeds submitted by the complainants were misplaced.  The opposite parties are prepared to make available a certified copy of the documents at the expenses of the opposite parties.  Complainant has not suffered any loss.  Therefore complaint has to be dismissed.

          4.      First complainant was examined as PW1 and  Ext.A1 to Ext.A4 were marked on their side, and on the side of the opposite parties DW1 was examined and Ext.B1 to Ext.B7 were marked before the Forum.  On the side of the complainants PW2 and 3 were also examined.  On an appreciation of evidence the forum found that there was  deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and directed them to give a certified copy of the documents with proper endorsement showing loss of original title deeds and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and a cost of Rs.1,000/-.  The opposite parties have filed A/235/2013 challenging the said order of the Forum.  Complainants have filed  A/226/2013  claiming enhancement of the compensation and for a direction to the effect that opposite party shall furnish  indemnity bond.

5.      Heard both the counsels. 

6.      The following points arise for consideration.

1. Whether the complaint is premature ?
2. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
3. Whether the compensation awarded by the Forum is inadequate?
4. Whether the opposite parties should be directed to give an indemnity bond?     

7.        It is admitted that complainants 1 and 2 have availed over draft facility from the 1^st opposite party bank and 3^rd complainant deposited the original title deed No.2108/04 to SRO Koduvayur.  The loss of title deed is admitted in Ext.A2 reply sent by the opposite parties and the same has not been so far traced out.  The third complainant has entrusted the documents with the bank for safe custody.  Therefore there is clear deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.  The finding of the Forum on this point is confirmed.

8.The counsel for the appellant/opposite parties argued that complaint is premature as the complainants have has not closed the loan.  There is no merit in the above contention. The first complainant as PW1 testified that he was prepared to close the loan, but the first opposite party was reluctant to receive the amount as the title deed is misplaced.  He has issued notice Ext.A1 on August 26, 2011 demanding closing of the loan and return of the original title deeds and in the reply notice Ext.A2 dated September 13, 2011 the opposite parties have admitted the loss of documents.  That apart complainants have deposited Rs.3,16,883/- before the Forum which is the balance amount due to the bank.  That being so cause of action arose on September 13, 2011, date of reply notice which follows that complaint is not premature.  Therefore the appeal filed by the opposite parties 235/13 has to be dismissed.

9.        Next question for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Forum is inadequate Forum awarded a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and directed the opposite parties to hand over the certified copy of the documents to 3^rd complainant with proper endorsement showing loss of original title deeds.  The properties having an extent of 6 cents of land with a house having plinth area of 1650 Sq.Fts.  Ext.A3 series are the photos of the said property.  PW1 testified that it is very difficult  to obtain a loan with a copy of the document.  He produced Ext.A4 notice issued by the SBI Vadakkanthara Branch showing that the loan cannot be granted without original documents.  That apart it is common knowledge that an intended purchaser will be reluctant to purchase said property without the original document.  Under these circumstances we feel that a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- would be reasonable.  That being so the appeal filed by the complainants in Appeal No.226/13 has to be partly allowed.  We find no reason to interfere with the finding of the Forum that the opposite parties are directed to hand over certified copy of the document to the complainant with proper endorsement showing loss of original title deeds.  The amount deposited by the complainant before the Forum shall be adjusted towards the loan amount due to the bank.

Complainants have prayed for a direction directing the opposite parties to execute an indemnity bond.   As the opposite parties are Nationalised Bank and as they were prepared to issue certified copy of the document with proper endorsement we feel that it is not proper to pass such a direction.

In the result Appeal.235/13 is dismissed and Appeal.226/13 is allowed in part as found above.  Complainants are entitled to a cost of Rs.5000/- in these appeals.

 

JUSTICE.P.Q.BARKATHALI : PRESIDENT

V.V. JOSE : MEMBER

VL.