IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No.CC/150/2015.
Date of Filing: 28.10.2015. Date of Final Order: 26.04.2017.
Complainant: Suchitra Chakrabarty, W/O Late Swapan Chakrabarty, Vill. Karbala Road,
Nabapalli, Panchanantala, P.O. Cossimbajar Raj, P.S. Berhampore,
Dist. Murshidabad. Pin 742102.
-Vs-
Opposite Party: The Branch Manager, Allahabad Bank, 314, Netaji Road, P.O. Khagra,
Dist. Murshidabad. Pin 742103.
Present: Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya …………………. President.
Sri Samaresh Kumar Mitra ……………………..Member.
Smt. Pranati Ali …………………… Member.
FINAL ORDER
Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya Presiding Member.
The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying for delivery of the original Title Deed in respect of the dwelling house of the complainant’s husband to the complainant and for payment of compensation of Rs.50, 000/- towards harassment and Rs.50, 000/- towards mental pain and agony.
The complainant’s case, in brief, is that Swapan Chakraborty husband of the complainant took a house building loan from the Opposite Party as an employee and the complainant also took a cash credit loan in the name of “M/S Dolphin” from Opposite Party. At the time of taking house building loan the original Title Deed in respect of dwelling house of the complainant’s husband deposited to the Opposite Party as Security against the said Loan. Both the House Building Loan and Cash Credit Loan were repaid and closed on 19.12.12 and 18.3.15 respectively and the OP issued loan clearance certificate and assured to return the original Title Deed but not delivered the same in spite of repeated request including Advocate notice and lastly on 29.8.15 the OP’s office misbehaved and refused to deliver the original Title Deed. Then, the complainant has filed the instant complaint. Hence, the instant complaint case.
The written version filed by the OP, in brief, is that the loan clearance certificate was issued to the complainant along with all the original documents and all other relevant papers. The Bank returned back all the relevant documents to the complainant at the time of closing the file. The complainant took all the documents Swapan Chakraborty was an employee of the bank and he was well aware that when the documents are to be taken back. The OP Bank had returned back all the documents to Swapan Chakraborty. The complainant had made a false and fabricated story for unlawful gain. The Bank Authority has neither laches nor liability. As such the complaint petition is liable to be dismissed with costs. Hence, the instant written version.
Considering the pleadings of both parties the following points have been raised for the disposal of the case.
Points for Decision.
- Whether the complaint is maintainable in its present form or in law?
- Whether the complainant has locus standi to file this instant case?
- Whether the case is barred by limitation?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for?
- To what other relief/reliefs the complainant is entitled to get?
Decision with Reasons.
Point Nos. 1 to 5.
All the points are taken up together for the same of convenience.
The instant complaint is for return of the original title deed of the dwelling house of the complainant’s husband from the OP Bank and for compensation of Rs. 1 lakh.
The complainant main case is that complainant has not got return of the original title deed of the dwelling house of the complainant’s house after getting NOC of both the House Building loan taken by the complainant’s husband as an employee of the OP Bank on 29.12.12 and c ash credit loan for the business of the complainant –‘M/S Dolphin’ on 18.3.15.
On the other hand the OP-Bank has denied the allegation of the complainant. The loan clearance certificate was issued along with all the original documents. The OP had handed over all the documents to his employee Swapan Chakraborty, the husband of the complainant.
To prove the case the complainant herself has tendered examination-in-chief on affidavit on dock and has been cross-examined on dock and has filed all the relevant documents in support of her case.
The complainant, PW-1 has deposed in her cross-examination that her husband was the cashier-cum-clerk, attached to Allahabad Bank, Berhampore Branch.
In her cross-examination she has deposed that her husband took House Building loan from the OP-Bank and she also took loan of Rs.3 lakhs for her wooden furniture in the name and style as M/s Dolphin and the House Building loan amount was repaid on 29.12.12.
Admittedly, the House Building loan taken by husband of the complainant was closed on 29.12.12 where husband of the complainant died on 22.10.2014.
The complainant-PW-1 has deposed in her cross-examination admitting the fact that the Deed of the Building against which loan was sanctioned was mortgaged with OP-Bank.
It is also an admitted fact that Swapan Chakraborty husband of the complainant was cashier-cum clerk of OP-Bank and took House Building loan from OP bank and loan was repaid by him in his lifeltime on 29.12.12 long before his death on 22.10.14.
Where the complainant’s main case is that the original title deed of the dwelling house which was mortgaged with OP-Bank at the time of taking House Building Loan by her husband was not returned at the time of issuance of clearance certificate of that loan which was repaid on 29.12.12..
It is quite natural that in that case husband of the complainant ought to have asked for return of the same from OP-Bank.
But, no such document showing application made by Swapan Chakraborty during the period from 29.12.12 to 22.10.14 claiming return of his mortgaged title deed.
The complainant’s case is that complainant herself took cash credit loan from Allahabad Bank, Cossimbazar Branch and the same was repaid and closed on 18.3.15.
It is clear that husband of the complainant took House Building loan from OP-Bank , Berhampore Branch where complainant took cash credit loan from Allahabad Bank , Cossimbazar Branch who is not party to this case. At the same time the deed in question was not deposited as security with Allahabad Bank, Cossinbazar Branch.
From the cross-examination of PW-1, it is clear that 3 months before filing this case the complainant came to know that they have not got back the original deed of property from the bank.
PW-1, the complainant herself has deposed in heir cross-examination that Loan Clearance Certificate was delivered to her husband in the year 2012 by the OP-Bank Manager.
She has also deposed that she has not seen the documents which were handed over at the time of issuing Loan Clearance Certificate.
She has deposed that after the death of her husband, going to the Bank she asked for the Original Deed.
The complainant filed the instant complaint on 28.10.15 and her cash credit loan was closed, rather cleared on 18.3.15 and three months before filing the instant case means in the month of July, 2015 she came to know first that the original title deed of property was not got back from the bank which was deposited as security at the time of getting House Building Loan from OP-Bank by her husband which was closed and NOC was issued on 29.12.12 to her husband by OP Bank who died on 22.10.2014 but there is no iota of evidence that during this long period of about two years her husband during his lifetime asked for or raised any objection for non-return of the said deed against the OP-Bank.
It is true that the OP-Bank has not adduced any document showing acknowledgement of receipt of the original deed by the borrower –employee, the husband of the complainant.
But, the instant case being civil case the principle of preponderance of probabilities is to be considered for deciding the dispute.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the particular case as discussed above we find that preponderance of probability is in favour of the OP-Bank and for that we have no other alternative but to agree with the argument advanced by the Ld. lawyer of the OP-Bank that if the said document is lost after issuance of NOC regarding House Building Loan to Swapan Chakraborty husband of the complainant who was cashier-cum-clerk of the OP Bank the liability is at the end of the complainant, there is no liability of the OP Bank.
At the same time question may arise that there may have probability that the said document was lost at the OP-Bank.
If that be so the employee of the bank who took House Building loan will not remain silent. He would not even write any letter to OP-Bank for getting back the original title deed raising complaint that at the time of issuing NOC original deed was not returned to him and would ask for return of the same and would take necessary steps one after another during his lifetime during the period 29.12.12 to 22.10.14.
But, no such evidence has come before this Forum from the side of the complainant.
In the complaint petition there is clear averment that at the time of taking house loan the original title deed in respect of dwelling house of the complainant’s husband deposited to the Party as security against the said loan. Thus, there is no question of waiting upto 18.3.15 for the settlement of the cash credit loan of the complainant with Allahabad Bank, Cossimbazar Branch.
On the basis of above discussions as a whole strong presumption considering the principle of preponderance of probabilities is that the impugned original deed was lost at the end of the complainant and for that OP-Bank is not responsible and as such the complainant is not entitled to get any relief from the OP-Bank. Accordingly, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Hence,
Ordered
that the Consumer Complaint No. 150/2015 be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest.
There will be no order as to cost.
Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgment / be sent forthwith under ordinary post to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.
