Ld. Advocate(s)
For Complainant: Kaushik Das
For OP/OPs : Anindya Mukhopadhayay
(2)
Date of filing of the case :21.01.2019
Date of Disposal of the case :04.05.2023
Final Order / Judgment dtd.04.05.2023
Complainant above named filed the present complaint against OP No.1 & 2 praying for direction upon opposite parties to supply all original documents which were taken at the time of sanction of loan and Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh) for deficiency in service, Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) for mental pain, agony and harassment and Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) as cost of legal expenses.
He alleged in the petition of complaint that he took loan from OP NO.1 vide loan account no.1174250022835 and agreement was executed on 24.03.2011 and OP No.1 received the original deed vide no.2843/2006 in the name Chhabi Rani Garai who is the wife of complainant and guarantor of the loan. Complainant paid entire amount of loan account with interest on 03.10.2016 but OP NO.1 did not hand over a single document including the aforesaid original deed and rent receipt in favour of the complainant. He made several requests to the OP NO.1 for aforesaid documents but he did not return the same to the complainant. Moreover, he misbehaves with the complainant.
At the time taking the loan OP NO.1 and his non-official agent misguided him and by force deducted Rs.1,00,000/- from the loan account and invested the same in TATA AIG Policy and also deducted Rs.70,000/- from his loan account and by force deposited the same in fixed deposited account. As a result complainant got only Rs.1,30,000/- to conduct his business. Complainant made an application before the Regional Manager on 20.03.2018 with a prayer to refund deed and rent receipts which were taken at the time sanction of loan.
On 03.07.2018 OP No.1 by a letter requested the complainant to allow few days for delivery of original deed and rent receipts. But they did not comply the same.
Lastly on 26.03.2018 complainant issued one Advocate’s letter to the OP No.1 through his Ld. Advocate namely Abdur Rahaman Seikh but till date complainant did not get the aforesaid documents.
Hence, he filed this case. OP NO.1 & 2 appeared in this case and filed W/V and denied the entire allegations. They further stated that complainant took one CC loan of Rs.1,00,000/- on 18.09.2009 for the purpose of business. On 24.03.2011 said loan amount was enhanced to Rs.2,99,000/-. Complainant applied for the said loan amount and after disbursement he started his business. But he started floating the terms and conditions mentioned in the sanction letter. Complainant failed to repay the loan amount. The officers of the OP NO.1 & 2 visited the unit of complainant on
(3)
several times and requested to regularise the outstanding balance but all are in vain. On 30.09.2014 said account became NPA. Thereafter, complainant severally requested, OP NO.1 to compromise the dispute. Getting no other alternative OP No.1 compromised the loan account with of Rs.1,00,000/-, though the outstanding amount was Rs.2,38,753.71. Accordingly OP No.1 issued no dues certificate. At the time of sanction no landed security was taken by the OP NO.1 as per sanction letter dated 24.03.2011. All on a sudden complainant came the office of OP No.1 and said to the present Branch Manager that the original deed being no.2843/2006 in the name of Chhabi Rani Garai had been kept with the bank as security for this loan. As per said demand OP No.1 on good faith without perusing the sanction letter issued a letter to the complainant asking him for sometimes to search the alleged deed. Taking this advantage the complainant filed this case for same illegal game. He prays for dismissal of the case.
Trial
During trial complainant Ajit Kumar Garai filed affidavit in chief on 02.09.2019. OP No.1 & 2 filed interrogatories and complainant filed reply supported by affidavit.
Documents
Following documents have been produced on behalf of the complainant viz :
- Carbon copy of Sanction letter issued by UBI dtd.18.08.2009.......(One sheet)
- Original copy of sanction letter for enhancement of limit/cash credit issued by UBI dtd. 24.03.2011........(Three sheets)
- Original application for refund of documents issued by complainant to UBI dtd. 20.03.2018.......(One sheet)
- Original Document of Deposit slip Rs.1,00,000/- of UBI dtd. 03.04.2016......(One sheet)
- Original copy of No dues/No Objection Certificate dtd.03.10.2016......(One sheet)
- Original copy of letter issued by UBI to complainant dtd. 03.07.2018......(One sheet)
- Xerox copy of legal notice issued by Ld. Advocate Sri Abdur Rahim Shaikh dtd. 26.07.2018....(Two sheets)
- Original copy of Loan Account Statement against A/C No.1174250022835 from 18.08.2009 to 02.10.2015....(Two sheets)
Brief Notes of argument.
Complainant filed BNA on 24.03.2023. OP No.1 & 2 filed BNA on 08.02.2023.
(4)
Decision with Reasons
It is the admitted position that complainant took one loan from OP NO.1 and subsequently by way of compromise through discussion in between complainant and OP No.1 loan amount was settled to Rs.1,00,000/- and complainant paid the same directly to the OP NO.1 by way of cash deposit. Complainant produced the original cash deposit receipt dated 03.04.2016. On perusal of the said document we find that complainant paid Rs.1,00,000/- to the OP No.1 as an amount of one time settlement regarding loan. On perusal of no dues certificate issued by OP No.1 dated 03.10.2016, we find that OP No.1 stated in the said document that complainant has closed his loan account. So it is clear before us that at present OP No.1 will not get any amount from the complainant as dues of loan account.
Complainant stated in the petition of complainant that at the time sanction of loan amount he deposited one original deed which stands in the name his wife namely Chhabi Rani Garai vide deed no.2843/2006.
He further stated that OP No.1 by issuing a letter dated 03.07.2018 prayed for sometime from the complainant to trace out the said deed.
OP NO.1 & 2 in their W/V denied that they did not receive any original deed being no.2843/2006 in the name of Chhabi Rani Garai. They also gave an explanation in the W/V that on good faith and without perusing the sanction letter they on 03.07.2018 issued a letter to the complainant asking sometime to search the alleged deed.
We have carefully gone through that documents filed by the complainant. Complainant produced the sanctioned letter dated 24.03.2011, we find that OP NO.1 sanctioned for enhancement of limit of cash credit/over draft/term loan to Rs.2,99,000/-. In point no.6 documents to be executed have mentioned. In point no.12 other terms and conditions it has mentioned that the property offered for mortgage shall be valued from time to time by the banks approve valuer at the cost of the complainant.
On perusal of sanction letter which was issued on 18.08.2009. I find that following articles has mentioned as security.
- Hypothecation of stock in trade.
- Lien of TD 1174100408929 Rs.30,000/-.
- Instrument of TATA AIG Document for Rs.1,00,000/-.
- Personal Guarantee by Smt. Chhabi Rani Garai.
- Security Mortgage of Land and Building.
(5)
Said loan was enhanced on 24.03.2011 from the limit of cash credit loan of Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs. 2,99,000/-.
So, it is clear before us that at the time of granting the said loan for the first time on 18.08.2009 security Mortgage of Land and Building was done. At the time of said documentation filing of original document i.e document for the title of property must be filed before the Bank. Without filing of said document Mortgage of Land and Building cannot be done.
As said loan was granted and disbursed so it is clear before us that security Mortgage of Land and Building was done and aforesaid deed vide no.2843/2006 was filed before the OP No.1.
So it is clear before us that property was mortgaged. So it will be presumed OP NO.1 took the document relating to property. So it can be presumed that complainant filed document relating to property. In the petition of complainant it has been stated that Chhabi Rani Garai being the guarantor deposited his deed vide no.2843/2006.
On perusal of letter dated 03.07.2018 we find that OP No.1 clearly stated the entire matter and requested the complainant to grant few days time to trace out the aforesaid deed. During hearing Ld. Adv. for the OP NO.1 argued that OP No.1 on a good faith wrote the said letter without going through the sanction letter. Such type of plea is not accepted because it will be presumed that Branch Manager after confirming the entire matter wrote the said letter. He denied the contention of the said letter. He is not a layman. So it will be presumed that he knowing the contention written by him executed the said letter by putting his signature.
From the aforesaid discussion it is clear before us that OP No.1 took the original deed vide no.2843/2006 from the complainant which stands in the name of his wife Chhabi Rani Garai and till date they did not return the same to the complainant. Even OP NO.1 did not return the other documents in favour of the complainant. OP NO.1 also failed to produce any document in support of the fact that they have already returned the other documents in favour of the complainant.
In the result present case succeeds.
Hence,
It is
Ordered
that the present case be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP NO.1 & 2 with cost of Rs.3,000/- to be paid OP NO.1 & 2 in favour of the complainant.
(6)
OP NO.1 & 2 jointly or severally are directed to return the deed vide 2843/2006 in favour of the complainant within one month from this date failing which OP NO.1 & 2 jointly or severally shall pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation in favour of the complainant.
Let a copy of the order be supplied to the parties as free of cost.
Dictated & corrected by me
............................................
PRESIDENT
(Shri DAMAN PROSAD BISWAS,) .................................................
PRESIDENT
(Shri DAMAN PROSAD BISWAS,)
I concur,
........................................
MEMBER (NIROD BARAN ROY CHOWDHURY)
