CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 15th day of February 2014
PRESENT : SMT. SEENA. H, PRESIDENT
: SMT. SHINY. P.R, MEMBER
: SMT. SUMA. K.P, MEMBER Date of filing : 23/4/2013
CC / 80 / 2013
Ponnukuttan,
S/o. Chamimuthaliyar,
9/441, Essanikode, Thenari, Palakkad. : Complainant
(By Adv. P. Ram Mohan)
Vs
1. The Bank Manager,
Bank of Baroda,
Palakkad Branch, Palakkad.
2. Bank of Baroda, (Head Office),
Suraj Plaza I,
Sayaji Ganj,
Baroda – 390 005
3. Bank of Baroda (Corporate Centre),
Baroda Corporate Centre,
Plot No. C-26, Block G,
Bandra Kurla Complex,
Bandra (East),
Mumbai - 400 051. : Opposite parties
(By Adv. G. Ananthakrishnan)
O R D E R
By Smt. Suma. K.P, Member
The above complaint is filed for the return of original document No. 4643 of 1992 of Sub Registrar Office, Palakkad and its ancillary documents alleged to have been deposited with the opposite parties Bank while availing a loan in the year 2001 or in case of failure to do so to pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- and cost of the proceedings along with compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service.
Complainant submits that he had availed loans form opposite parties Bank on three different occasions. The first such loan was taken in the year 2001 and the same was revived and subsequent loans were taken. At the time of taking such loans original title deed No. 4643/92 Sub Registrar Office, Palakkad of the complainant was given to the bank manager concerned. The last such account was closed on 12/10/2012 and the complainant requested to return the original documents but the manager seeks time. At last the complainant made further enquiries and it was revealed that original documents were missing from the Bank while shifting branch office. Complainant also alleges that he was in financial stringency due to which he was forced to sell the property covered by the document mentioned above. But due to non availability of the original document the complainant could not do so. This resulted in loss to the complainant and same was occurred only due to deficiency of service of the opposite parties.
Complaint was admitted. Notice was issued to opposite parties for appearance. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version denying all the allegations. Though the three loan transactions were admitted by the opposite parties, the deposit of original title deeds were denied. Further there is no deficiency of service and the complainant is not a consumer and the only relationship between the complainant and opposite parties is that of a debtor and creditor which ended when the complainant closed the loan account. The complainant has to approach Civil Court for redressal of his grievances. On several occasions including after receipt of the legal notice, whenever the complainant visited the Bank he was personally informed that the Bank is not having any of the documents.
The evidence adduced by the parties consist of their respective chief affidavits and documents. Ext.A1 to Ext.A7 and Ext.B1 to Ext.B 16 were marked. On the side of complainant 3 witnesses were examined as PW1, PW2 and PW3. Opposite parties present Bank Manager was examined as DW1.
The points that arises for consideration is;
1. Whether the complainant is a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act?
2. Whether the documents has been collected by the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
4. If so, what is the cost and relief entitled to the complainant ?
Issue No.1
The opposite parties has alleged that the above complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. The relationship between the complainant and opposite parties is that of a debtor and creditor which ended when the complainant closed the loan account. Hence the complainant has to approach Civil Court for redressal of his grievance. This is only a unlawful contention because consumer as such defined under the term ‘Service’ under Section 2(1)(o) of Consumer Protection Act covers that the purview of Bank (statutory bodies). More over in Section 5(b) of Banking Regulation Act, “banking” means, the acceptance for the purpose of lending or investment of deposits of money from the public repayable on demand or otherwise. The intention of Consumer Protection Act is to protect consumer of such services rendered by the Bank. This is asserted in decision rendered by Division Bench of our Hon’ble High Court in Standard Chartered Bank Ltd. Vs Dr. B.N. Raman reported in 2006 KHC 879. Hence the complainant is a consumer. Issue No. 1 is answered accordingly.
Issue No.2
Complainant was examined. 2 witnesses examined from the part of complainant deposed that the original documents were handed over to opposite parties at the time of availing the first loan. The complainant was examined as PW1 being non educated persons, sticked on to his stand as detailed in the complaint. The complainant and their neighbours are traditional weavers and both witnesses Pw2 and PW3 had taken loan of same category from the opposite parties. This fact was admitted by DW1 (present Bank Manager) during cross examination. PW2 had deposed that he had witnessed handing over of original documents by the complainant to the Bank Manager. PW2 asserted the fact that he had witnessed the complainant asking above mentioned original documents from the 1st opposite party (then Bank Manager) and opposite parties seeks time to return the original documents. It is revealed from Ext. B3 term loan agreement, Clause 4 it is stated that as security for the repayment to the Bank of the amounts due under this Agreement, the Borrower hereby hypothecates unto the Bank by way of first charge............................................... as hypothecated goods. From Ext.B2 it is revealed that the complainant had executed a Promissory Note in favour of opposite parties for an amount of Rs. 25,000/- as security to the said loan. On perusal of relevant documents relating to the sanction of said loan it can be observed that the mortgage of complainant’s property was not at all stipulated in any of the loans sanctioned. Hence the allegations of the complainant that he had handed over the documents cannot be swallowed without a pinch of salt. Loans granted to the complainant is not secured by mortgage of his property as alleged by the complainant. During cross examination of DW1, he had stated that he is not personally aware of facts of transactions and situations that resulted in the above complaint since he took charge only a few weeks before the evidence of this case. He also deposed that the person just before him is now transferred to Thrissur Branch. The complainant ought to have taken steps for examination of the then manager so as to prove his allegations in the complaint.
Issue No.3 & 4
The complainant submits that without the above mentioned original title deed value of the property was considerably reduced and he was unable to sell the same in order to meet the marriage ceremony of his daughter. As there is no deposit of title deed by the complainant with opposite parties at any pint of time, the opposite parties cannot be held liable for deficiency of service. Hence there is no liability to pay the amount as claimed in the complaint.
From the above discussions it is very clear that complainant had not proved the contentions raised in the complaint. Complaint is devoid of merits and hence dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 15th day of February 2014
Sd/-
Smt. Seena. H
President
Sd/-
Smt. Shiny. P.R
Member
Sd/-
Smt. Suma. K.P
Member
A P P E N D I X
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 - Original Lawyer Notice with postal receipt and acknowledgement card.
Ext.A2- Original Pass Book (account No. 09480600011973) of complainant issued by the 1st opposite party.
Ext.A3 - Original Pass Book of complainant (Account No. 7984).
Ext.A4- Original Pass Book (Account No. 4217) of complainant issued by the 1st opposite party.
Ext.A5- Original Letter issued by the 1st opposite party dated 13/1/2007.
Ext.A6- Original Pass Book (Account No. MSA 14/4101/204).
Ext.A7- Original Pass Book (Account No. MSA 14/4100/202).
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties
Ext.B1 - Original of Sanction Letter (Credit Facilities) issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant dated 4/3/2011.
Ext.B2 - Original Promissory Note for Rs. 25,000/- dated 4/3/2011
Ext.B3 - Original Term Loan Agreement for Small Loans
Ext.B4 - Original Declaration cum Undertakings cum Authority dated 4/3/2011.
Ext.B5 - Original Application Form
Ext.B6 - Original ‘articulars to be supplied by the Applicant/guarantor for advance issued by the 2nd opposite party.
Ext. B7- Photocopy of Statement of Account for the period of 1/8/2010 to 26/2/2011 issued by the 1st opposite party dated 26/2/2011.
Ext.B8 - Original Receipt for an amount of Rs. 25,850/-.
Ext.B9 - Original Letter of Acknowledgement of Debt dated 30/6/2010.
Ext.B10 Original Credit Facilities issued by the 1st opposite party dated 14/2/2005.
Ext.B11 Original D.P. Note for an amount of Rs. 15,000/- dated 14/2/2005.
Ext.B12 Original Declarations cum Undertakings cum Authority.
Ext.B13 Original Term Loan Agreement for Small Loans
Ext.B14 Original Application Form
Ext.B15 Original of Particulars to be supplied by the Applicant for advance
Ext.B16 Original Letter of Acknowledgement of Debt dated 31/7/2007.
Witness examined on the side of Complainant
PW1 - Ponnukuttan
PW2 - Subramanian
PW3 - Ganesan
Witness examined on the side of opposite parties
DW1 - Venkataraman. S
Cost allowed
Nil
