Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/29/2012

THE CHIEF MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

T.P. NEELAVATHY - Opp.Party(s)

A.V. ARUN

16 Jul 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

BEFORE        Thiru. J.JAYARAM                  PRESIDING  JUDICIAL MEMBER

                         Tmt. P. BAKIYAVATHI                                                 MEMBER

F.A.NO. 29/2012

[Against the Order in  C.C.No. 60/2010 dated 11.10.2011 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai(North)]

DATED THIS THE 16^th  DAY OF JULY 2015

Union Bank of India

Rep.by the Chief Manager

Madhavaram Branch

No.1, G.N.T Road, Moolakadai

Chennai 600 110                                                                               ..Appellant/opposite party

                                                                               Vs

T.P.Neelavathy

W/o T.R.Palani

Rep.by her General Power of Attorney

S.Dhandayuthapani

S/o. T.A.Shanmugam

No.6, Elango street, Anbazhan Nagar

Chennai 600 011                                                                              ..Respondent/complainant

 

Counsel for the Appellant/opp.party   : M/s A.V.Arun

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant : M/s A.Prabhakaran

 

This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 27.4.2015 and upon perusing the material records, this commission made the following order.

                        ORDER

THIRU.J.JAYARAM, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.         This appeal is filed by the opposite party against the order of the District Forum, Chennai (North) in CC.No. 60/2010 dated 11.10.2011 allowing the complaint.  

2.         The case of the complainant is that she had deposited the title deed of her property with the opposite party as security for the loan availed by one M/s Mohana Casting Works and that the loan was fully discharged on 12.1.2008 but the opposite party did not return the original sale deed deposited by the complainant as security, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and hence the complaint.

3.         According to the opposite party, the loan was fully discharged on 12.1.2008 and the document had been deposited before the Civil Court in O.S.No.205/1988 filed by them before discharge of the loan by the complainant and they have to get back the documents from the Civil Court and as soon as it is received from the Sub Court it would be handed over to the complainant and there is no negligence or deficiency in service on their part.

4.           It is pertinent to note that the loan was entirely discharged by the complainant on 12.1.2008 and the appellant/opposite party is bound to return the documents deposited as security for the loan at the earliest opportunity. The contention of the opposite party is that they are yet to get back the documents from the Civil Court through their Advocate, and the Advocate has taken steps to get back the records from the Civil Court. The matter is settled between the parties on 12.1.2008 which is reflected in Ex.A.2 and now we are in 2015 and we have to note that the document has not been returned to the complainant by the opposite party bank which amounts to negligence on the part of the opposite party and had the opposite party taken earnest steps to get back the documents from the Sub Court through their Advocate, they could have got back the documents from the Civil Court much earlier. The matter has been settled between them and despite the delay of so many years in getting back the documents from the Civil Court, the delay is due to the callousness on the part of the opposite party in not pursuing the matter seriously.

5.       The contentions of the appellant that the complainant has filed the complaint without proper power of attorney and that the complaint is not maintainable, and that the Civil Case filed by the complainant in Civil Court is pending and so the present complaint before the Consumer Forum is not maintainable are untenable and the District Forum has rejected the contentions for proper reasons.

6.      Another strange contention of the appellant is that the document deposited by the complainant cannot be treated as a title deed and the document is only the parent document. We are not concerned with the nomenclature or title of the document and the complainant is entitled to return of the documents deposited by her by whatever name it is called and this is not an issue before us at this stage and therefore the contention of the appellant in this regard is not sustainable. There is no force in the other contentions submitted by the appellant. Therefore we hold that there is  deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not taking serious steps and follow up action to get back the documents from the Civil Court and in not returning the documents to the complainant even after so many years.

7.      The District Forum has rightly held that the negligence and deficiency in service,  is established against the opposite party and that the complainant is entitled to get compensation. The District Forum has allowed the complaint and has passed an order directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) as compensation for mental agony and to pay costs of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only).

8.      We find no infirmity in the order of the District Forum and we agree with the finding and the decision of the District Forum.

9.          There is no merit in the appeal.

           In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the order of the District Forum.    

          No order as to costs in the appeal.

 

 

  P.BAKIYAVATHI                                                                  J. JAYARAM                    

        MEMBER                                                          PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER