DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024.
PRESENT : SRI. VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT.
: SMT. VIDYA .A, MEMBER.
: SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.
Date of filing: 22.11.2022.
CC/231/2022
1. Santhakumari.K, - Complainant
Retd Teacher,
“Subhaga”, Sreekrishna Nagar,
Koduvayur, Chittur Taluk,
Palakkad District.
(By Adv. Surendran.P.A)
VS
1. State Bank of India, -Opposite Parties
Branch Office, Koduvayur,
Palakkad Dt.-678 501.
Rep. by Branch Manager/authorized Signatory.
2. State Bank of India,
Head Office, Thampanur,
Trivandrum Rep. by General Manager/
Chief Manager/Authorised Signatory.
(OP1 by Adv.Beena.P.V)
ORDER
BY SMT. VIDYA .A, MEMBER.
1. Pleadings of the complainant in brief
The complainant availed a housing loan from the 1st opposite party on 24.07.2012 for Rs.7 lakhs by pledging the original documents with regard to the property such as sale deed Nos.1500/2007, 1308/1999 and 1309/1999 of Koduvayoor SRO, basic tax receipt, possession certificate, property tax receipt and salary certificate. Subsequently, the entire loan amount was cleared and a closure certificate was issued to the complainant on 25.02.2022.
After closure of the loan, the complainant approached the 1st opposite party for the return of the documents and they told her that they have to search the document and asked to come after one week. After one week, they did not return the document and asked to come after one month. Even after that they did not return the documents as promised. They further told her that when the loan was availed during 2012, the Bank was functioning in the name of State Bank of Travancore and in the year 2017, SBT was merged to State Bank of India. At the time of merging, the documents were shifted to the office of the new custodian of the Bank and requested some more time for returning the document.
On 11.04.2022, the complainant again approached the 1st opposite party and gave a written complaint. But nothing was done by the 1st opposite party. On 26.10.2022, the complainant lodged a complaint against the 1st opposite party in Pudungaram Police Station; but they did not take any positive action on this complaint. The acts of the opposite parties amount to clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. So, the complainant approached the Commission with the following prayers.
1) To direct the opposite parties to return the original documents submitted before the 1st opposite party at the time of availing housing loan.
2) To pay 2 lakh as compensation for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by the opposite parties.
3) To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.1 lakh as compensation towards mental agony suffered by the complainant.
4) To pay Rs.25,000/- as cost of litigation.
2. After admitting the complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. The 1st opposite party entered appearance and filed version.
3. The 1st opposite party in their version admitted that the complainant had taken home loan for Rs.7 lakhs on 24.07.2012 from SBT Koduvayoor Branch by pledging the original documents of his property with deed No.1500/2007 of SRO Koduvayoor. The above loan was closed on 25.02.2022 and the opposite party, Bank had issued closure letter to the complainant. Thereafter, State Bank of Travancore was merged with SBI and loan files from the Branch was transferred to present SBI, Koduvayoor Branch. When the complainant approached the opposite party for the release of the documents, the branch informed that the files are transferred to RASMEC. But later RASMEC informed that the files were not transferred to them. Thereafter, they come to know that the files were misplaced during transit.
Hence, the Branch Manager of the opposite party met the complainant at his residence and informed her about the missing of documents and assured that they are ready to bear all the expenses for the procedure required to be done in case of loss of original title deed and complainant also agreed to their suggestion. But after that, she came with this complaint before this Commission. All other prayers in the complaint are not reasonable and the compensation claimed is very high.
They prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
4. Since there was admission from the part of the opposite parties, the case was posted for ‘’settlement’. On two postings, the opposite party sought time for settlement; after that no steps were taken by them. Complainant filed proof affidavit and Exts.A1 to A6 were marked. Opposite party filed an application as IA.No.573/2023 to cross examine the complainant and it was dismissed. The opposite party filed proof affidavit without any documents. Evidence was closed and heard.
5. In this case, the opposite parties in their version had admitted that the original title deed of the complainant which was pledged with them at the time of availing the housing loan was lost from their custody. Eventhough they agreed to bear the expenses for the procedure to be done in case of loss of original title deed, they did not do anything.
6. Based on the admission, it is clear that there is deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party in not returning the pledged title deed and they are bound to compensate the complainant for that. The complainant suffered mental agony and inconveniences due to the acts of the 1st opposite party. Further, the inaction on the part of the 1st opposite party had compelled the complainant to file this complaint causing further inconveniences and expenditure.
In the result, the complaint is allowed.
1) We direct the 1st opposite party to bear the expenses for getting the duplicate of the title deed or in the alternative to pay Rs.50,000/- as expenses for the same. They are directed to issue a certificate to the complainant to the effect that the original title deed is irrecoverably lost from their custody and to bear the expenses for notification by paper publication to that effect.
2) The 1st opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.1 lakh as compensation for their deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, Rs.75,000/- for the mental agony and inconvenience suffered and 25,000/- as cost of the litigation.
The above amounts are to be paid within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which the opposite parties are liable to give Rs.500/-as solatium per month or part thereof till the date of payment.
Pronounced in open court on this the 27th day of March, 2024.
Sd/-
VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT.
Sd/-
VIDYA.A., MEMBER.
APPENDIX
Documents marked from the side of the complainant:
Ext.A1: Photocopy of the jenm sale deed No.1500/2007 of SRO, Koduvayur.
Ext.A2: Copy of the property tax receipt issued from Koduvayur Grama Panchayath.
Ext.A3: Copy of the basic tax receipt issued from Koduvayur I, Village.
Ext.A4: Copy of the complaint submitted before the Inspector of Police, Pudungaram, by the complainant .
Ext.A5: Copy of the letter issued by the complainant to the 1st opposite party.
Ext.A6: Closure certificate issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant.
Document marked from the side of Opposite party: Nil.
Cost : 25,000/-
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5)of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
