SRI G.K. RATH, PRESIDENT … The brief fact of case is that, the complainant for his self employed had availed a loan from OP.s for Rs.3,00,000/- vide loan A/c No.106013046000156 in the year 2008 towards transactions of his hardware shop in the name of Tara Tarini Hardware. The complainant at the time of loan had furnished the registered sale deed of his shop house, record of right of the shop house, rent receipt etc, and on continuation of payment along with interest till May’2017, the OP.1 sent him a letter for renewal of the said loan account. On receipt of the letter the complainant intended to renew the said loan account but the OP.1 called for the entire family for signing the documents at his Bank, otherwise he refused to accept the ROR issued by Tahsildar and rendered ultimatum, either to bring all the family members to the Bank or to close the account by clearing all dues and balances. The complainant opted for the later period, as the family members of the complainant are residing at distance places and is not possible to bring them all in one date. The complainant contends that despite clearing the balance amount along with all accrued interest for a sum of Rs.1,16,018/- on 09.08.2017 as full and final dues, the complainant asked the OP.1 for the documents to be returned to him which he had pledged in the Bank at the time of availing loan, but the OP.1 assured to return the same in a month’s time but all his efforts are in vain. After several personal approaches, the complainant issued an advocate notice on 01.11.2017, and in result the OP.1 on dt.03.11.17 came to the complainant with certain forms and required that the complainant to fill the same and furnish it in the bank as well as replied to the legal notice. The complainant further contends that, from Annexure-E, furnished by the OP.1 is meant for those persons in the case where the account holder is deceased and the claimants are the legal heirs or have any interest in the pledged property or amount, but the case is completely different, here the account holder is alive and he had cleared up all the dues along with interest, so the OP.1 has with malafide intention has with hold the documents which causing severe mental agony and harassment to the complainant. For such action of OP.1 the complainant is inflicted from taking any financial help from any other financial institution to run his livelihood, so there is deficiency in service on the part of OP.1. Hence the complainant prayed to direct the OP.s to return the pledged documents furnished by the complainant, and direct the OP.s to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.5000/- as cost of litigation.

2.         The counsel for OP.s entered his appearance and filed counter to contend that, the complainant approached the OP.1 along with his father Late Ramakrishna Rath to avail a working capital loan in the year 2005 for running his shop and his late father agreed to stand as the Co-Obligant/ Guarantor and offered his property as collateral security and kept deposited the original registered sale deed No.1265/1992 and the complainant had availed the working capital loan A/c no. 106013046000156 in the year 2005 i.e. on 24.01.2005. The working capital loan has been renewed time to time whenever it was due for renewal by the incumbent Managers. Same as it was fallen due and the claimant applied to renew the limit and placed an application for Laghu Udyami Credit Card and as per banking rules and the then Branch Manager renewed the limit in favour of complainant. He further contends that the said working capital limit was fallen due for renewal on 28.3.17 and when after repeated reminders, telephonic conversation and personal visit, the complainant did not respond to the branch and did not submit any required document for renewal of limits, hence the OP.1 sent a letter on 08.05.17 requesting to submit the required papers for renewal of limit. But however the complainant appeared in the bank in the month of Aug’17 and intimated orally that his father died leaving behind his legal heirs to which the OP.1 requested to renew the said loan account and handover prescribed forms to be filled up by complainant and advised to furnish along with death certificate of his deceased father and he required the legal heirs to sign for renewal of limit.

3.         He further contends that the complainant has never submitted Death certificate or legal heir certificate or any other documents required for renewal of limits and he has never came to the OP.1 for return of documents pertaining to the property mortgaged by Late Ramakrishna Rath. Moreover he averred that, it is fact that the amount may be deposited either by complainant or through anybody for closure of loan account but so far concerned release of the Title deed/original Registered Sale deed No.1265/1992 dt.06.06.1992, the OP.s are need to follow the banking rules to be filled up the prescribed form and furnish the Legal heir certificate along with death certificate and all the legal heirs are required to remain present in the bank, unless, it will perverse to the banking rules as per procedure prevailing in banking systems. So finally he contends that there is no deficiency on the part of OP.s, hence he prayed to dismiss the case with cost.

4.         The complainant has filed copy of certain relevant documents in support of an affidavit. The counsel for OP.s filed nothing except his counter. So we decided to proceed the case as evidences available in record on merit. Heard from both the sides and perused the records.

5.         What we find from record is that, the complainant along with his father Sri Ram Krushno Rath had approached the OP.1 for the first time during the year 2005 for avail a loan to improve hardware business of complainant but at that time the complainant had furnished collateral property document pertaining to Registered Sale Deed No.1265/1992 Khata No.1341/565, Plot No.620/2568 and as per banking norms of OP.s his father had been the Co-Obligant/guarantor of that loan. On Subsequent transaction the complainant being proprietor and having the ROR & Mutation documents in his own name pledged the Registered Sale deed/Mutation documents of his own shop house name and style of Tara Tarini Hardware pertaining to Khata No.1341/1446 of Sadasivapur Mouza and availed loan amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from OP Bank and later anyhow he closed the said loan by depositing the balance dues with all accrued interest Rs.1,16,018/- on 09.08.2017. The complainant in the same month of Aug’2017 approached the OP.1 along with a mutation document of his own name & title intimated that his father died leaving behind his legal heirs and he demanded the documents as pledged against the loan, but the OP.1 though not denied to issue the same but seeks death certificate of his late father and required appearance of entire legal heirs of Late Ram Krushno Rath before the Bank, hence this complaint.

6.         It is further seen that the OP.1 has issued certain forms as annexure and required that the complainant to fill up the same and furnish that in the bank. On the other hand the counsel for complainant vehemently urged upon that the OP has issued Form/annexure E is not applied for the complainant but it is to be filled those account holder is deceased and the claimant are the legal heirs or have any interest in the pledged property or amount, but this case is completely different, here the account holder is alive and he had cleared up all the dues along with interest.

7.         It reveals from the record that the OP.s did not clear their stand throughout the transactions that despite closing the said loan by the complainant on what occasion they have kept the documents/RORs in their own custody. In our view it is admitted fact from both parties that though the OP.1 availed some loan to complainant by keeping some original property documents but the complainant repaid the loan dues along with all accrued interest for a sum of Rs.1,16,018/- on dt.09.08.2017 for full and final settlement and when he demanded the documents, the OP.s did not handover the same and required to appear all the legal heirs under his late father before the bank.

8.         In view of pros and cons of the transaction we feel that the OP.1 keeping the ROR and other documents in the name of late Ram Krushno Rath but in the present case the complainant is the borrower and he placed his father just as a guarantor but nothing else and when the complainant cleared the outstanding dues he is entitled for the documents as he has pledged but in this case the OP.s has refused to return the same in arbitrary manner. It is most pertinent to mention here that the bank shall have noticed that the father of complainant is not the borrower of the said loan rather he was just a co-obligant/ guarantor of the said loan, and when they have grant loan direct to the complainant, they should have handover the documents whatever he furnished during hypothecation. The time and again required to appear the legal heirs of Late Ram Krushno Rath before the bank is nothing but unfair and against the principles of settled law. The OP.1 should return the documents which they are kept against the said loan as there are no outstanding loan dues against the said complainant.

9.         Moreover before parting with the matter, we would like to put on record our deep sense of appreciation for the assistance rendered by complainant that the so called legal heirs are presently residing out of Nabarangpur and appearance of all legal heirs in a day would be quite hard on the part of complainant. It is further found that due to non release of original documents the complainant abstained for subsequent transaction to explore his business, hence he inflicted with great mental and financial injury.

10.       Based on the evidence adduced by complainant and the pleading put forth, it is seen that though the OP.s context the present case through counter which is not supported by sworn affidavit as well as the OP.s failed to file a single scrap of document as evidence to prove their case. Hence we found some negligence on the part of OP.1, and the OP.2 being the higher ups deliberately silent over the entire matter. So in our concerned view there is deficiency in service on the part of OP.s and the complainant is entitled for immediate relief.

            As thus we allowed the complaint against the OP.s with cost.

                                                                                                  ORDER

i.          The opposite parties supra are hereby directed to return the documents as pledged against the loan in question unconditionally, besides they are directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) towards compensation, inter alia, to pay Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two thousand) as cost of litigation to the complainant.

ii.         The above directions shall be complied with in 30 days of receipt of this order, failing which, the total awarded sum shall carry 12% interest per annum till its realization. Order pronounced in the open forum on this the 21st day of May' 2018.

                Sd/-                                                                  Sd/-

          MEMBER                                                  PRESIDENT,DCDRF,

                                                                                 NABARANGPUR