SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER)<br /> <br /> The complainant has filed the complaint before this Forum alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. In his complaint, the complainant has stated that he had availed a loan of Rs.5,000/- under self employment scheme, on the basis of his application before the Employment Exchange. The complainant has further contended that when contacted before the opposite party Bank, for taking steps to get the loan, the Bank authorities had insisted to produce the documents of land owned by the complainant. As such complainant had entrusted the document, CC No.32 in Sy.440/11C – with the opposite party. The loan was for his business purpose. Since the complainant has defaulted payment, the opposite party initiated RR steps against the complainant to realize the loan amount. The complainant has remitted the entire loan amount and closed the loan a/c with the opposite party. After the closing of the said loan amount, the complainant demanded the return of the above said document from the opposite party. Since the opposite party has not complied with demand of the complainant, the complainant filed this complaint before the Forum, alleging deficiency of service. <br /> 2. Notice was sent to the opposite party and it was accepted and entered appearance. The opposite party filed version. In the version, opposite party has stated that during 1984 the complainant has availed a loan of Rs.5,000/- under self employment scheme for running provision shop. It was coming under scheme sponsored by the Government and as per the scheme; the consumer is not required to give any collateral security; and being so the bank was not entitled to insist for any immovable securities and the loan was granted strictly as per the scheme. Opposite party further stated that the complainant had not deposited any title deed with them for securing the loan.<br /> 3. Considering the contentions of the opposite party the Forum raised the issue whether there is deficiency on the part of the opposite party?<br /> 4. Complainant examined as PW1. In the cross examination he has stated that he has not collected any documents to show that he has entrusted the title deed with the opposite party. The opposite party – the Manager of the Bank; while in box has stated in cross examination; that, Ext.B1 produced by the opposite party is the authorized register of the said loan. The opposite party has produced Ext.B1 document in evidence. It is the current a/c information sheet relating to the loan of the complainant. It shows that the security, for this loan was DPN and hypothecation of goods only and documents executed was DPN for Rs.5000/-, DPN, Delivery letter, letter of assignment and hypothecation agreement. The contents of the above document shows that the complainant had not deposited any, title deeds with the opposite party Bank for releasing the said loan. In this context it cannot be say that the complainant had deposited the alleged document with the opposite party Bank. Complainant has not produced any acknowledgement/letter from the opposite party to show the acceptance of the said title deed by the bank at the time of sanction of the loan. So the contention of the complainant has no locus standi and we are of the view that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. <br /> In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as cost.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in open Forum on this the 28th day of March, 2008.<br />