1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that in the year, 2002 he took a loan of Rs.3, 30,000/- from the OP to purchase a Mahindra Marshal Vehicle under hypothecation agreement vide loan a/c No.11190280190 and the Ops while sanctioning the loan, retained the original title deeds of the property belongs to the complainant’s family towards equitable mortgage and for collateral purpose.  The vehicle was registered as OR-10C-3656 and the complainant deposited the entire loan amount in the loan account on 09.1.2012 as per the amount settled on mutual discussions.  It is submitted that the OP vide his letter No.Adv/54/54 dt.18.1.12 intimated the registering authority about clearance of the loan and after due process, the hypothecation endorsement made in the registration certificate of the vehicle was cancelled.  Thereafter the complainant has been approaching the OP for return of all original title deeds of the property but the Ops taking time with some plea or other.  It is further submitted that with holding the title deeds, the OP had issued notices to the complainant stating that the complainant is a defaulter in respect of loan account and requested the complainant to settle the matter in the Lok Adalat on 24.11.13 and 29.12.13 and the complainant through his advocate appeared before the Lok Adalat and submitted that the complainant is not a defaulter and has cleared loan outstanding for which the OP had informed the RTO, Koraput earlier to delete hypothecation mark made in the registration certificate.  It is also further submitted that due to issue of notices by the OP, the complainant sustained mental agony and his reputation has been hampered in the society.  Thus alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the OP to pay Rs.2.00 lacs with interest @ 12% p.a. to the complainant towards damage and compensation.

2.                     The Opposite Party filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant but admitted about taking of loan by the complainant for purchase of Mahindra Marshal Vehicle on hire purchase agreement after giving mortgage of the landed property of his family members.  It is submitted that the complainant as well as guarantors could not repay the loan dues as per agreement and hence the said loan account was declared as Non Paid Account (NAP) and the complainant and his family members were informed by the bank for seizure of the vehicle.  Thereafter the complainant filed a request application to settle the loan account under OTS and considering the application, the bank advised the complainant to pay the settlement dues of Rs.3, 30,000/- out of his total dues of Rs.5, 72,000/- within 90 days but the complainant again became defaulter and repaid the same in 8 months on installments instead of 3 months time given.  It is further submitted that due to nonpayment of dues within stipulated period, the bank cancelled the OTS proposal of the complainant and again demanded full amount towards loan dues but on sincere request of the complainant, the bank reconsidered his case by obtaining approval and finally the complainant was left free without any more demand.  As the loan account was closed, the guarantors who had deposited their title deeds ought to have         taken steps to take back their documents but even after requests, they did not turn up and the complaint petition is also silent about any steps taken by the guarantors to take back their documents.  It is also further submitted that the complainant cannot take back the documents in absence of guarantors and he also has not filed any authorization letter from the guarantors before the OP to receive the original documents.  However, the complainant as well as guarantors came to the bank on 15.5.2014 and received their documents by putting their signature in the prescribed format.  Thus denying any fault or any deficiency in service on their part, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     Both the parties have filed certain documents along with affidavits in support of their case.  The complainant has also filed additional affidavit dt.25.7.2014 in support of his case.  Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials available on record.

4.                     In this case, the loan availed by the complainant for purchase of Mahindra Marshal Vehicle on hire purchase agreement from the OP vide a/c No.11190280190 in the year 2002 and submission of title deeds of property belonging to the family members of the complainant for creation of equitable mortgage and for collateral security are all admitted facts.  It is also admitted fact that the complainant has closed the loan a/c on 09.1.2012 for which the OP issued Form-35 to the Registering Authority for cancellation of hypothecation mark in the registration certificate of the vehicle.  The case of the complainant is that after closure of loan accounts, the OP did not return the original title deeds and instead issued notice to the complainant to attend Lok Adalat to settle the loan dues which fact lowered the dignity of the complainant in the society.  The complainant further in his additional affidavit dt.25.7.14 submitted that the OP handed over the original title deeds of their property on 15.5.14 and such delay by the OP is illegal for which the complainant is entitled for compensation.

5.                     In this case the OP stated that the complainant agreed to give mortgage of the landed property which were stood recorded in the name of guarantors.  The complainant became defaulter and his a/c became NAP and guarantor also did not repay the loan dues of the complainant.  It is further stated that as per request of the complainant the OP settled the loan account under OTS after deducting interest amount and some part of the principal from the total dues and the bank requested the complainant to pay the settlement dues within 90 days but the complainant failed to repay within the time frame for which the OTS settlement was cancelled and after sincere prayer of the complainant it was reconsidered by the OP.

6.                     The OP stated that non return of title deeds is not their fault as because neither the complainant with authorization nor the guarantors approached the OP to take return of their documents in spite of requests.  The complainant stated that he approached several times to the OP for return of documents.  The above allegation and counter allegation has no evidential value as no piece of paper is available on record to that effect.  As ascertained from the record, the complainant and guarantors had given in writing to the OP regarding taking of loan and deposit of original title deeds on 27.12.2002.  The copy of said application and endorsement of the complainant and guarantors is available on record.  The OP stated that at the time of return, the same persons are required to acknowledge the receipt of securities in a proper form and as the complainant and guarantors did not come and cleared up the formalities, their documents could not be handed over to them.  The OP has filed copy of documents dt.15.5.14 through which the complainant and guarantors have received the original title deeds.  From the above facts it became clear that the complainant and guarantors have received the documents in the same manner as they followed at the time of taking of loan and it was not the duty of the OP to search the guarantors to handover their documents after closure of loan accounts.  Hence we do not find any merit in the allegation that after closure of loan dues, the bank did not return the documents to the guarantors.

7.                     Regarding allegation made by the complainant that they have been humiliated and subject to mental agony, the OP submitted that the complainant and guarantors have failed to deposit the loan amount in the prescribed manner for which the loan became bad and NAP and finally complainant requested the bank for OTS settlement and the bank incurring huge loss has considered the inability of payment of loan dues by the complainant.  Hence by doing so, the bank up holds the reputation of the complainant.  The learned A/R for the OP submitted that issue of notice is not intentional because during Lok Adalat, the OP has issued notices as per the record available with computer.  The name of the complainant was in the defaulting list and when they issued bulk notices to their customers as per computer record, the notice to the complainant was crept in unintentionally and during Lok Adalat, the said notices were rejected by the bank as not actionable.

8.                     It was seen that the bank has helped the complainant several times and closed the loan accounts by issuing F.35.  Hence issuance of notice had no value.  The complainant has also not categorically stated that by getting the notice how he became humiliated when the OP has rejected the notice during Lok Adalat.

9.                     From the above discussions, we ascertained that there is no convincing evidence to substantiate the allegation of the complainant that due to issuance of notice, their reputation degraded in the society.  Any order passed without any reason or without referring or adverting to the pleas or averments of the parties particularly the OP against whom allegation have been made is illegal and unsustainable and causes miscarriage of justice.  Therefore, by issuance of notice which has no meaning and without any burden to the complainant cannot be a deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.

10.                   In the above facts and circumstances, we find no merit in the case of the complainant which needs to be dismissed.  In the result, we dismiss the case of the complainant having no merit.  Parties are to bear their own costs.

( to dict.)