Date of Filing : 24.08.2022
Date of Disposal: 18.05.2023
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVALLUR
BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law) .…. PRESIDENT
THIRU.P.VINODH KUMAR, B.Sc., B.L., .....MEMBER -I
THIRU.P.MURUGAN,.MCom., ICWA(Inter)., B.L., ....MEMBER-II
CC. No.164/2022
THIS THURSDAY, THE 18th DAY OF MAY 2023
1.Mr.G.Ramakrishnan (Died),
S/o.Govinda Pillai,
Chittatoor Village,
Kilanur Post, Thiruvallur 602 021.
2.Ponniyammal, W/o.G.Ramakrishnan,
residing at No.1/1, Perumal Kovil Street,
Chitatoor Village, Kilanoor Post,
Thiruvallur District.
3.Saraswathy, W/o.Dass,
residing at Mariamman Kovil Street,
kakallur Village, Thiruvallur Taluk & District.
4.Meenakshi,W/o.Rajendran,
residing at No.17/A,
Manimegalai Street,
Gandhi Nagar, Ambattur, Oragadam 600 053.
5.R.Jayasankar,S/o.G.Ramakrishnan,
residing at No.1/1, Perumal Kovil Street,
Chitatoor Village, Kilanoor Post,
Thiruvallur District.
6.Janaki, W/o.Gunusekaran,
Permal Kovil Street,
Uppara Palayam Pothur,
Thiruvallur Taluk & District.
7.R.Beemavathi,W/o.Padmanabam,
residing at Veeraragava Swamy Nagar,
Kakallur Village,
Thiruvallur taluk & District. .........Complainants.
//Vs//
State Bank of India,
Agricultural Development Branch,
Rep by its Manager,
Thiruvallur 602 001. ...Opposite party.
Counsel for the complainants : M/s.K.Chinnathambi Raja, Advocate.
Counsel for the opposite party : Mr.B.Muralitharan. Advocate.
This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 15.05.2023 in the presence of M/s.K.Chinnathambi Raja counsel for the complainants and Mr.B.Muralitharan counsel for the opposite party and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides, this Commission delivered the following:
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT.
This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service in non-return of original documents entrusted with the opposite party for the purpose of agricultural loan along with a direction to pay a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service to the complainant.
Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-
It was the case of the complainants that the 1st complainant was an account holder with the opposite party bank and he obtained a loan from them by creating a mortgage in favour of the opposite party by delivering the Original Title Deeds over the property being agricultural lands, measuring about 2.23 acres comprised in S.No.80, 88/1, 88/2, 60/1, 60/2 and 36 of Chittattoor village, Tiruvallur Taluk and District. The opposite party filed a suit in O.S.No.860/1988 on the file of the District Munsif, Thiruvallur against the 1st complainant to recover the dues which was decreed on 08.02.1989. In 2006 they had settled all the dues payable to the opposite party. As an usual consequential corollary, the opposite party was requested to hand over the original title documents, back to the complainant as the said documents were no longer a security, as the debt no longer exist after 2006. The 1st complainant approached the District Legal Service Authority by which he could get only a certified copy, which is no way a substitute or equivalent to the Original Title Documents. The opposite party‘s lawyer did not return the original title document. In fact, the opposite party wrote a letter requiring the complainant to file a petition before the court for return of document, though the document was filed by them. The 1st complainant lodged a complaint before the RBI which was acting as an Ombudsman. On 30.12.2021, the RBI, too had rejected the complaint under section 16(2) (a) of the Reserve Bank of India Ombudsman Scheme 2021 as if there is no deficiency in service. The non-return of the original document though the bank dues had been settled as early as 2006, the issuance of replies after replies by the opposite party for about 16 years, the conduct and response of the opposite party in a totally uncared manner had lead to untold suffering and misery. The complainants 2 to 7 could not make any partition of the properties between them for the past 16 years because of the non availability of the original partition deed which was not returned to them which amounted to deficiency in service by the opposite party. Thus aggrieved by the act of the opposite party the present complaint was filed to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- towards compensation for the deficiency in service.
Crux of the defence put forth by the opposite party:-
The opposite party filed version disputing the complaint allegations contending interalia that the complainant has not come before this commission within the limitation period. The complainant had availed a loan from the opposite party in the year 1979 and on default committed by the complainant in repayment of the loan amount, the opposite party had filed a suit for recovery of the amount due against the complainant before the Hon’ble District Munsif court, Thiruvallur vide OS.No.860/1988. The preliminary decree in the suit was passed in favour of the bank on 08.02.1989 and the final decree passed on 10.06.1991. The complainant had paid the dues and settled the claim in the year 2006 and requested the return of the title deeds submitted at the time of availing the loan and marked as exhibits in the suit. The opposite party had entrusted the job to one of its panel advocate Mr.D.Damodaran on 15.07.2006 since the existing panel advocate Mr.N.R.Kannan was not available during the relevant period. Unfortunately there was no communication from the panel advocate about the status of the application for return of the documents. Meantime, the complainant had approached the District Legal Services Authority to resolve the dispute. The opposite party had attended the enquiry before the District Legal Services Authority and assured all necessary help to secure the documents from the court. On the advice of the District Legal Services Authority, the opposite party had secured a certified copy of the partition deed bearing Document No. 2787/1975 and handed over to the complainant on 24-12-2019 as an interim measure since it is taking long time to get the original. The opposite party had also entrusted the job of securing the original documents filed before the court to the present panel advocate, Mr.D.Satish Kumar vide Letter Ref. No. 164, dated 24-12- 2019 and the proceedings were under process. Not satisfied with the ernest efforts taken by the opposite party, the complainant had approached the Banking Ombudsman and lodged a complaint on 30-12-2021. The opposite party appeared before the authority and submitted the facts and steps taken by the bank. Satisfied with the steps taken by the opposite party, the Banking Ombudsman had closed the complaint by order dated 30-12-2021. Since the suit is of the year 1988 and disposed in the year 1991, the entire records of the suit had been sent from the District Munsif Court at Thiruvallur to District Court at Chengalpattu, there is a genuine difficulty in locating and securing the documents filed in the suit at the earliest and the opposite party is taking necessary steps through their panel advocates to secure the documents and hand it over to the complainant. The failure to secure the original title deeds is due to the bonafide reasons and solely due to the delay on the part of the complainant and not due to any negligence on the part of the opposite party.
On the side of complainants proof affidavit was filed and submitted documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 on their side. on the side of opposite party proof affidavit was filed but no document was filed on their side.
Points for consideration:-
Whether the complaint allegations as to non-return of the original documents entrusted with the opposite party for the purpose of securing agricultural loan (Document No.2787/1975) by the opposite party even after settlement of the entire loan amount as early as on 2006 amounts to deficiency in service and whether the same has been successfully proved by the complainant?
If so to what relief the complainant is entitled?
Point No.1:-
On the side of the complainant the following documents were filed in support of the complaint allegations;
Decree in OS.No.860/1988 dated 08.02.1989 was marked as Ex.A1;
Letter by the opposite party to the complainant was marked as Ex.A2;
Communication from banking Ombudsman (RBI) dated 30.12.2021 was marked as Ex.A3;
Title Deed dated 16.07.1975 was marked as Ex.A4;
Plaint copy in OS.No.860/1988 filed in District Munsif Court, Thiruvallur was marked as Ex.A5;
Order copy in I.A.No.423/1991 in OS.No.860/1988 dated 10.06.1991 was marked as Ex.A6;
Heard both parties. The crux of the oral arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant is that the documents which were entrusted with the opposite party for the purpose of obtaining loan was not returned by them even after payment of the entire loan amount. Further, the opposite party filed a suit against them for recovery of money which was decreed as early as on 08.02.1989 and in the said suit the document was filed by the opposite party. However, even after the suit was decreed and the entire dues were paid as per the decree, the opposite party failed to obtain the documents and return the same to the complainant. When requested by the complainant the opposite party did not take any serious efforts to obtain the documents. Only a certified copy was produced when he approached the legal services authority. Thus he sought for a prayer to pay a compensation Rs.30,00,000/- by the opposite party.
Rebutting the complaint’s allegation the counsel appearing for the opposite paty argued that it is only due to the lethargic attitude of the complainant, the document could not be given back to him. It is his contention that the complainant did not approach in time so as to enable the opposite party to take steps to procure the document. Thus stating that they have already given certified copy of the document it is contended that there is no deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant. The counsel sought for the complaint to be dismissed.
We perused the entire pleadings and materials. The opposite party did not deny the complaint allegations. But their only defence is that the complainant did not approach in time. However, the complainant has alleged that they approached the opposite party after 2006 immediately but as they could not get the document, they approached the Legal Services Authority. The opposite party was directed to issue certified copy of the document which was issued by the opposite party. As per the written version the opposite party had themselves admitted that the certified copy of the document was given only as an interim measure before the legal services authority. It is also submitted by the complainant that when they applied for the certified copies in OS.No.860/1988 there is an endorsement in the plaint that the document was received back by the opposite party and duly signed by the counsel of the opposite party Mr.N.R.Kannan dated 10.06.1991. in such circumstances the allegation of the complainant that all along from 10.06.1991 till date the opposite party’s version that the document was still in court and that they are taking all efforts to get back the document through their counsel from the court is an utter false case has to be accepted. In such facts and circumstances, we hold that the lethargic and irresponsible attitude on the part of opposite party in not taking strenuous efforts to procure the document and to hand it over to the complainant clearly amounted to deficiency in service on their part. Accordingly this point is answered in favour of the complainants and as against the opposite party.
Point No.2:
As we have held above that the opposite party had committed deficiency in service in not returning the document and when it is even admitted by the opposite party at the time of arguments that they are taking every effort to procure the original document, we direct them to take effective steps to trace out the document within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and to hand it over to the complainant. Further for causing huge delay in returning the document causing mental agony and hardship to the complainant we award a compensation Rs.50,000/- to be paid by the opposite party. We also award Rs.5000/- as Cost.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed against the opposite party directing them
a) To take effective steps so as to trace out and obtain the original document No.2787/1975 Registered in Sub Registrar Office, Thirvallur and to hand it over the same to the complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order;
b) To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant;
c) To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 18th day of May 2023.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II MEMBER-I PRESIDENT
List of document filed by the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Decree in OS.No.860/1988 dated 08.02.1989 Xerox
Ex.A2 Letter by the opposite party to the complainant. Xerox
Ex.A3 Communication from banking Ombudsman (RBI) dated 30.12.2021. Xerox
Ex.A4 Title Deed. Xerox
Ex.A5 Plaint copy in OS.No.860/1988 filed in District Munsif Court, Thiruvallur. Xerox
Ex.A6 Order copy in I.A.No.423/1991 in OS.No.860/1988 dated 10.06.1991 Xerox
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II MEMBER-I PRESIDENT
