Complaint presented on:  24.02.2014

                                                                Order pronounced on:  06.07.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L., PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,   MEMBER II

 

THURSDAY THE 06th DAY OF JULY 2017

 

C.C.NO.32/2014

 

 

Aravind K.Valiyathara,

Rep. by its Power Agent,

Ms.Madhavi Menon,

D/o.Late P.Madhava Menon,

D-54, Syndicate Residency,

36, Dr.Thomas Road,

T.Nagar,Chennai – 600 017.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant 

 

..Vs..

Syndicate Bank,

No.69, Armenian Street,

Chennai – 600 001,

Reptd. By its Manager.

                                                                                                                        .....Opposite Party

    

 

     

 

Date of complaint                            : 26.02.2014

Counsel for Complainant              : M/S.V.Balaji A.Sermaraj & Deepa Hari 

                                                                    Govind

 

Counsel for    Opposite Party                   : M/s.P.Sreenivasulu, J.Srinivasan

       M.Mohammed Riazudeen,Swetha 

                                                                    Raajendran

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the opposite party to return the original sale deed and other documents deposited by him and also compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony with cost of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

The Complainant was working as a clerk in the Opposite Party bank. He availed the housing loan in the year 1980 for a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- depositing his original sale deed  promoted as Assistant Manager and he resigned the said post in the year 1993 and settled at America. The Complainant has repaid the entire loan as on 14.11.1997 and thereafter he continuously requested the Opposite Party to hand over his original documents. On 09.01.2006 the Opposite Party has issued no due certificate. On 30.11.2010 the Complainant gave personnel representation to return the original documents. Thereafter he issued advocate notice dated 07.03.2012 to the Opposite Party and he received the same on 08.03.2012. In the mean time, as the Complainant decided to settle at America, he gave General Power of Attorney in favour of Mrs. Madhavi on 07.12.2011 to initiate action against the Opposite Party. Failure to return the documents to the Complainant is deficiency. Hence the complainant filed this compliant to direct the opposite party to return the original sale deed and other documents deposited by him and also compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony with cost of the complaint.

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

The complainant in the cause title of the complaint his name mentioned as Aravind K.Valiyathara, but the person who deposited title deeds with the opposite party was one Mr.Aravind V.K.  The said V.K.Aravind is entirely different and distinct from that of the complainant above named and hence on this ground also, the above complaint is liable to be dismissed. The opposite party admits that one M.K.Aravind was the employee of the opposite party and he had availed loan of Rs.1,25,000/- depositing his title deeds. The opposite party and the said V.K.Aravind who was the employee of the opposite party and as an employee of the opposite party, he was having direct access to the security documents deposited by him with the opposite party. The opposite party understands that from the date of leaving by V.K.Aravind from the office of the opposite party, the said documents are not available with the opposite party and the said fact was fully aware by  Mr.V.K.Aravind. No due certificate also issued by the opposite party to Mr.V.K.Aravind. The said conduct of the complainant leaves a doubt in the mind of the opposite party, that the said V.K.Aravind alone  is responsible for non availability of the original documents. The complainant on 07.12.2011 only appointed Ms.Madhavi Menon as his power of attorney agent and the power of attorney agent is not entitled to speak about the facts of the case prior to 07.12.2011 and hence the power attorney agent is not aware what was transpired and happened between the complainant and Opposite party prior to 07.12.2011 and hence the above complaint filed by the complainant represented by his power of attorney agent is not maintainable and hence on the ground of maintainability, the above complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is true that the complainant sent a legal notice dated 07.03.2012 to the opposite party. The opposite party submits that even on 09.01.2006 itself, the opposite party informed to Mr.V.K.Aravind about non availability of the title deeds of his property with the opposite party. The averments made in the complaint are denied hence the opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the complaint.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

4. POINT NO :1

The admitted facts are that Mr.V.K.Aravind is the employee of the opposite party bank and while working as clerk he had availed housing loan in the year 1980 for a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- by way of depositing his original sale deeds and he repaid the entire loan and as early as 14.11.97 and Ex.A1 no due certificate was issued  by the  opposite party and thereafter the said  Mr.V.K.Aravind wrote letter Ex.A2 dated 30.11.2012 to the Opposite Party  to return the original deed to him. 

5. The opposite party raised an objection that only Mr.V.K.Aravind is their employee and the complaint is filed by in the name of Arvind K. Valiyathra and only Mr.V.K.Aravind alone deposited the title deeds and Mr.K.Valiyathra is the entirely different persons and therefore on this ground the complaint is not maintainable.

6. The opposite party admits that Mr.V.K.Aravind is an employee and who had availed loan by depositing documents. Arvind K.Valiyathra is the complainant. The employee Aravind initial is V.K. The said initial ‘V’ only shown as Valiyathra in the cause title. Ex.A2 letter written in the name of Mr.V.K.Aravind to the opposite party. Therefore, in view of above the complaint filed by the Arvind K.Valiyathra and the employee of opposite party V.K.Aravind are not different persons and they are one and the same and only such person availed loan from the opposite party and in view of the same the contention raised by the opposite party is rejected.  

7. The opposite party took an objection that the complaint has been filed by the power of attorney is entitled to speak the facts prior to the power of attorney dated 07.12.2011. Ex.A5 is the Power of Attorney to Mrs. Madhavi Menon to institute the complaint and accordingly Complaint also filed. Prior to power of attorney execution the facts that the complainant was working as an employee of the opposite party, availed housing loan and cleared the loan and documents not returned by the opposite party to the complainant are all not in dispute and such facts well known to the power of attorney. The power of attorney given to Mrs. Madhavi Menon enabling her to file compliant against the Opposite Party and to give evidence on behalf of the Complainant. Therefore in such circumstances the power of attorney is entitled to speak about the facts of the case prior to 07.12.2011.

8. The next contention of the opposite party is that no due certificate was issued on 09.01.2006 and from that day only the limitation has to be computed and hence the compliant ought to have been filed on or before 09.01.2008. The documents deposited by the complainant with the opposite party. So till realization  of the documents by the complainant from the opposite party, the complainant will  have continuous cause of action to take action to get return of documents. Therefore the contention of the opposite party has no merits ant the complaint is filed within the period of limitation.

 

9. Admittedly the opposite party had not returned the document deposited by the complaint. However, the opposite party had taken stand in his written version that the complainant as an employee of the opposite party was having direct access to the security documents deposited by him with the opposite party and the opposite party understanding that from the date of leaving by Mr.V.K.Aravind from the office of the opposite party, the said documents are not available with him and the said fact was fully aware by the complainant. If such contention of the opposite party is true, he would have very well replied to the Ex.A2 letter written  by the complainant in the year 2010 to the opposite party and Ex.A3 advocate notice received by the opposite party under Ex.A4 acknowledgement, that the complainant was aware of the documents deposited by him was not available with opposite party on the date of leaving of the complainant. Failure to reply to the letter and notice and also even after issuance  of no due certificate in the year 2006 and had not taken any steps to return the documents deposited by the complainant is deficiency on the part of the opposite party. It is only an afterthought of the opposite party that the complainant aware that the said documents are not available with him. Further the complainant was having direct access to the security documents is not accepted for the reason that in what capacity he had access to the security documents. Therefore, it is inferred that the opposite party had intentionally had not returned the documents deposited by the complainant even the loan was closed as early as 14.11.1997  and therefore, it is held that the opposite party has committed deficiency in service in not returning the documents to the complainant. 

10. POINT NO:2

The opposite party has not returned the original sale deeds deposited by the complainant and hence he had committed deficiency in service. Therefore the opposite party has to be ordered to return the original sale deeds and other documents deposited by him. The complainant is an employee of the opposite party even for him his employees are higher officer in the branch have not obliged to return the documents more than 16 years even though he paid the entire loan on 14.11.97. The opposite party who has failed to render service to his own employee,   one can infer that how the opposite party/bank will render service to the public in general and therefore we are inclined to order a heavy compensation to the complainant. Therefore a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-  can be  awarded as  compensation to the complainant towards the deficiency in service mental agony caused to him besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Party is ordered to return the original documents to the complainant which was deposited by him within two months from the date of this order and also to pay a sum  of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only)  towards litigation expenses.

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.

Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 06th day of July 2017.

 

MEMBER – II PRESIDENT

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 09.01.2006 No due Certificate

Ex.A2 dated 30.11.2010 Letter

Ex.A3 dated 07.03.2012 Advocate Notice

Ex.A4 dated 08.03.2012 Acknowledgement Card

Ex.A5 dated 07.12.2011 General Power of Attorney

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

…… NIL ……

 

 

 

 

MEMBER – II PRESIDENT