IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA
Dated this the 21st day of April, 2014.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C. No. 09/2014 (Filed on 06.01.2014)
Between:
N. Muraleedharan,
Kochuvilayil House,
Pongaladi, Mammoodu,
Pandalam Thekkekara Village,
Thattayil P.O. … Complainant.
(By Adv. Biju.M. Thankachan)
And:
Senior Manager,
The Federal Bank Ltd.,
Parakode Branch,
Adoor. … Opposite party.
(By Adv. A.C. Eapen)
ORDER
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):
The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite party for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. The complainant’s case is that he had availed an housing loan of Rs. 75,000/- on 16.03.2001 from the opposite party by creating an equitable mortgage by depositing original title deed No. 532/93 of SRO, Pandalam. The said loan account was closed on 31.03.2009 by paying the entire amount due to the opposite party. The opposite party also issued a certificate dated 03.08.2010 showing the closure of the loan account. Though the loan was closed, opposite party has not returned the original title deed No. 532/93 of SRO, Pandalam which was deposited in the bank in connection with the above said loan transaction. The complainant approached the opposite party on several occasions for getting back the said title deed. But they have not returned it by saying some or other reasons. Lastly, the complainant sent a lawyer notice on 20.06.2011 demanding the return of the title deed. Though the opposite party accepted the notice, they failed to send even a reply or return the document to the complainant. The non-return of the title deed by the opposite party put the complainant to various difficulties. In the absence of an original title deed, no bank will give loan to the complainant. The non-return of the original title deed by the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant. Hence this complaint for an order directing the opposite party to return the original title deed No. 532/93 of SRO, Pandalam along with compensation of Rs. 50,000/- with 12% interest and cost of this proceedings.
3. Opposite party filed their version with the following contentions: Opposite party admitted the loan transaction. But according to them, they have returned all the documents deposited by the complainant after the closure of the loan account. But the opposite party suspected that the then manager failed to incorporate the details of the title deed in the list of documents returned to the complainant and there is no chance to misplace the title deed from the bank. The complainant is exploiting the said mistake of the bank by filing this complaint against the opposite party because of the coercive steps taken by the opposite party to realize the loan dues from the complainant. The complainant is not entitled to get any amount from the opposite party as he had not suffered any loss or mental agony as alleged in the complaint. Opposite party admitted the complainant’s demand for the title deed and the complainant’s legal notice. But the opposite party could not send a reply to the legal notice due to the busy work in the bank. Opposite party being an established banking company, they are responsible and punctual in all their dealings with their customers and the opposite party had given good service to the complainant. Apart from the above contentions, opposite party also challenged the maintainability of this complaint on the ground of limitation. With the above contentions, opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost as they have not committed any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following points are raised for consideration:
- Whether this complaint is barred by limitation.
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get a relief as prayed for in the complaint?
- Relief and Cost?
5. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral deposition of PW1, DW1 and Exts. A1 to A5 and B1. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.
6. Point No.1: It is true that this complaint is filed after 2 years from the date of which the cause of action started. But this complaint is filed along with an application as IA.02/2014 for condoning the delay stating that the said delay was caused due to the assurance of the opposite party to return the document as and when it is traced out and the complainant was in an expectation of getting the document as assured by the opposite party. As this Forum finds no reason to disbelieve the above said explanation stated in the affidavit sworn in by the complainant which is filed along with the above I.A. So this Forum had allowed the said I.A. and thereby condoned the delay in filing this complaint. Moreover, opposite party has not challenged the order passed by this Forum in I.A. 02/2014. Further, though the opposite party raised a contention regarding the question of limitation, they have not adduced any evidence or challenged the veracity of the affidavit or even cross examined the complainant in this regard. Therefore, the objection of the opposite party in this regard will not sustain and hence we find that this complaint is not hit by the provisions of Consumer Protection Act related to the question of limitation. Therefore, this complaint is found maintainable before this Forum.
7. Points 2 & 3: The complainant’s allegation is that the original title deed No. 532/93 of SRO, Pandalam hypothecated/deposited with the opposite party in connection with an housing loan availed by the complainant is not returned so far in spite of the closing of the loan account and in spite of the complainant’s demand for the same on several occasions. The non-return of the said document by the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service which caused mental agony and other inconveniences to the complainant and the opposite party is liable to the complainant for the same.
8. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with 5 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts. A1 to A5. Ext. A1 is the acknowledgment dated 19.03.2001 issued by the opposite party in the name of the complainant showing the receipt of the title deed. Ext. A2 is the letter dated 03.08.2010 issued by the opposite party in the name of the Village Officer, Parappatty showing the closure of the complainant’s loan account. Ext. A3 is the copy of the legal notice dated 20.06.2011 issued to the opposite party demanding the return of the title deed. Exts. A4 and A5 are the postal receipt and postal acknowledgment card of Ext. A3.
9. On the other hand, the contention of the opposite party is that the said document and other documents deposited by the complainant are returned by the opposite party to the wife of the complainant as per her application dated 23.04.2009 and she had also acknowledged the same in the said application itself. But due to a mistake, the document in question is not entered in the said acknowledgment along with the list of documents returned to the complainant’s wife. Thus, they argued that they have not committed any deficiency in service as the documents including the title deed in question was returned as per the complainant’s wife’s application dated 23.04.2009.
10. In order to prove the contention of the opposite party, opposite party filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with one document. On the basis of the proof affidavit, he was examined as DW1 and the document produced is marked as Ext. B1. Ext. B1 is the application dated 23.04.2009 submitted by the wife of the complainant before the opposite party requesting the return of the documents deposited in the bank in connection with the loan transaction.
11. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the available materials on record and found that the parties have no dispute with regard to the loan transaction and the deposit of the documents including the title deed in question. According to the complainant, the title deed No. 532/93 of SRO, Pandalam deposited by him is not returned by the opposite party so far in spite of the closing of the loan account and after repeated demands for the same. But according to the opposite party, the said document was returned to the complainant’s wife as per her application dated 23.04.2009.
12. On the basis of the contentions of the parties, the only question to be answered is whether the title deed No. 532/93 of SRO, Pandalam deposited by the complainant is returned to the complainant by the opposite party? Ext. A1 clearly shows that the said title deed was deposited by the complainant on 16.03.2001. Ext. B1 shows that one Lalitha, Kochuvilayil had applied for the return of the documents on 23.04.2009 and 5 documents are received by the said applicant. It is pertinent to note that what is the right of the said applicant to submit an application like this as the borrower is the complainant and what is the right of the opposite party to allow the said application and to return the documents deposited by the complainant to the said applicant without obtaining any proper authorization from the borrower/complainant. Further, the complainant also disputed the signature seen in Ext. B1. The reasons for giving the documents to the applicant Lalitha and the genuineness of the signature seen in Ext. B1 is not proved by the opposite party. Therefore, the contention based on Ext. B1 raised by the opposite party is not sustainable. Moreover, if Ext. B1 is accepted in evidence for argument sake, the title deed in question is not shown along with the list of documents returned vide Ext. B1 application. Further, the contention of opposite party that the tile deed in question was not entered in the list of documents returned, shown in Ext. B1, is due to the oversight of the then manager and the reply for complainant’s lawyer notice was not send due to the busy work at the branch seems very strange. Thus in all respect, opposite party has miserably failed to prove their specific case that they have returned the title deed in question. Therefore, we find that the document in question is not returned by the bank and the said non-return of the title deed in question by the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service and hence this complaint is allowable.
13. In the result, this complaint is allowed; thereby the opposite party is directed to return the title deed No. 532/93 of SRO, Pandalam, if traceable, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order along with Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation and cost of Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand five hundred only) and if the document is not found, opposite party is directed to issue a certificate to the effect that the original of the title deed No. 532/93 of SRO, Pandalam received by them is not returned to the complainant as it was lost or mis-placed irrecoverably from their possession and there is no lien or charges to them over the said title deed and the loan account in connection with the said title deed is closed by the complainant and no amount is due from the complainant in the said transaction along with a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) and cost of Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand five hundred only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to realize a total amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) from the opposite party with 10% interest per annum from today till the realization of the whole amount.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 21st day of April, 2014.
(Sd/-)
Jacob Stephen,
(President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : N. Muraleedharan.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Acknowledgment dated 19.03.2001 issued by the opposite
Party in the name of the complainant.
A2 : Letter dated 03.08.2010 issued by the opposite party in the
name of the Village Officer, Parappatty.
A3 : Copy of the legal notice dated 20.06.2011 issued to the
opposite party.
A4 & A5 : Postal receipt and postal acknowledgment card of Ext. A3.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:
DW1 : Roy Mathew.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:
B1 : Application dated 23.04.2009 submitted by the wife of the
complainant before the opposite party.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent
Copy to:- (1) N. Muraleedharan, Kochuvilayil House,
Pongaladi, Mammoodu, Pandalam Thekkekara Village,
Thattayil P.O.
- Senior Manager, Federal Bank Ltd., Parakode Branch,
Adoor.
(3) The Stock File.
