By Sri.Ananthakrishnan. P. S, President:
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. The Complainant’s case in brief is as follows:-
The Complainant is a customer of Opposite Party bank. He had availed agricultural/business loans from the Opposite Party bearing loan account Nos. DPNRT 20/97 for Rs.25,000/-, DPNRT for Rs.50,000/-, DPNRT 39/98 for Rs.50,000/- and DPNRT 18/2000 for Rs.50,000/- on various occasions and he had repaid the entire loan amount very promptly. Thus, those loan accounts were closed by the Opposite Party. During the time of availing the loan, Opposite Party had obtained the original of jenmam assignment deed of his property bearing No.2260/1982 of Sub Registry office, Vythiri with tax receipts and back documents. Even after the repayment, the Opposite Party did not give back those documents. When the Complainant contacted them, they sought time for searching the documents. Even though, the Complainant has approached the Opposite Party several times to get those documents, the Opposite Party did not give back the documents till the date. Therefore, the Complainant has sent a registered letter to the Opposite Party on 28.04.2016 to get back the documents. But, even after receiving this letter, the Opposite Party did not give back the documents. Thus, the Complainant has undergone several mental agony and hardships. He is a small scale business man and due to the above irresponsible act of Opposite Party, he was not able to raise loans from other banks and financial institutions by mortgaging his property. This is unfair trade practice. There is deficiency also in the service of Opposite Party. Hence this complaint to get back the original title deed No.2260/1982 of SRO Vythiri with Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as cost of the litigation expenses.
3. The Opposite Party filed version which runs as follows:-
The Opposite Party admitted that the Complainant had availed loans from the Opposite Party as stated in the Complaint. They also admitted that the Complainant had repaid the entire loan amount and those loan accounts were closed. But they denied that during the time of giving the loan, the Opposite Party obtained the title deed of Complainant with tax receipts and basic documents and that even after closing of the loan accounts, they have not given back the documents. They never obtained those documents from the Complaints. They admitted that they have received the notice and did not send any reply. Since they explained the facts to the Complainant directly, they have not sent any reply. Those loans are short term loans. So, the Opposite Party had given the loans to Complainant by executing Promissory Note and Agreement. They did not obtain the title deed of the Complainant. Hence there is no deficiency in their service and there is no unfair trade practice. Thus, this complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. On the above contentions, the points raised for consideration are:-
1. Whether this compliant is barred by limitation?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice
from the part of Opposite Party? If so, whether the Complainant
is entitled to get anything from the Opposite Party?
3. Reliefs and Cost.
5. Point No.1:- This Point was answered against the Opposite Party as per order in I.A.25/2018. I.A.25/2018 has been filed by the Opposite Party challenging the maintainability of the complaint on the ground of limitation. This Commission on 14.02.2018 found that this complaint is maintainable.
6. Point No.2:- This is a case for getting back the title deed of Complainant with compensation and cost. The Complainant alleged that he had availed some loans from the Opposite Party and at that time the Opposite Party obtained his title deed. According to the Complainant, even though he closed all those loan transactions, the Opposite Party had not given back his title deed. So according to him, there is deficiency in their service and there is unfair trade practice. Opposite Party admitted the loan transaction with the Complainant. They have also admitted that the Complainant closed all those loans. Their specific case is that they never obtained the title deed of the Complainant at any time. So, they denied that there is deficiency in their service and there is unfair trade practice from them. According to them, since those loans are short term loans, they need not obtain title deed from the Complainant.
7. Complainant is examined as PW1. One of his distant relatives is examined as PW2. According to the Complainant, PW2 is the surety to the loan. To disprove the case of the Complainant, the present manager of bank has given evidence as OPW1. Ext.A1 series contain the copy of the Notice and Postal Receipt which prove that Complainant sent notice to the Opposite Party requesting to give back the documents. Ext.A2 is the Pass book of the Complainant. Ext.A3 is the copy of the title deed.
8. Admittedly, the Complainant never mortgaged his property by depositing his title deed for getting the loans. It is also an admitted fact that there are no documents to show that Opposite Party had obtained his title deed at the time of the loan transactions. The Opposite Party vehemently contented that there is no need of getting the title deed of the Complainant during the transaction because those loans are short term loans. Whether the said loans are short term or not does not arise for consideration here. As we already stated, there are no materials to show that the Opposite Party had obtained title deed of the Complainant at the time of giving the loan. The Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party contented that the Opposite Party need not retain any documents for more than eight years as per the Banking Companies (Period of Preservation of Records) Rules 1985 and thus, they have no responsibility to give the documents after 8 years, if anything received. Those rules contained the descriptions of the documents which are to be retained. We don’t understand why the counsel for the Opposite Party put forth such a contention because the said rules do not include the title deeds of consumer which is to be retained or destroyed. Anyhow, here absolutely, there are no materials to prove that Opposite Party had obtained the title deed of Complainant at the time of giving the loans.
9. The counsel for Opposite Party then contented that the case of the Complainant cannot be accepted because evidently he has closed all the loans in the year 2003 and came before this Commission only in the year 2017. If the Complainant has a genuine grievance as contended by him, he ought to have come before this Commission to get back his documents within a reasonable period. It is evident that he has sent a notice to the Opposite Party only in the year 2016 and thereafter filed this complaint on 09.11.2017. If his grievance is genuine as argued by Opposite Party, he should have come before this commission within a reasonable time. But, he approached this commission only on 09.11.2017 by filing this complaint. The Complainant has not explained why he came before this commission only after 14 years. PW1 admitted that he has closed all the loans 14 years back and only thereafter he sent Ext.A1 Notice. We do admit that the Opposite Party has not send reply notice even if, admittedly they received the notice. This does not mean that the Opposite Party had received the title deed of the complainant. The Opposite Party explained that after sending the notice, the Complainant contacted them, discussed the matter and thus they did not sent any reply to his notice. Therefore, if we analyse the entire materials placed before this Commission, it can be seen that there are no reliable materials to prove that the Opposite Party obtained the title deed of Complainant. So, it cannot be held that there is deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party. So the Complainant is not entitled to get anything from the Opposite Party. So this Point is answered against the Complainant.
10. Point No.3 & 4:- Since, Point No.2 is found against the Complainant, he is not entitled to get any reliefs as prayed for.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Opposite Open Commission on this the 20th day of April 2022.
Date of Filing:-09.11.2017.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. R. Nachimuthu. Agriculture.
PW2. Selvaraj. Business.
Witness for the Opposite Party:-
OPW1. Harihara Prasad. V. P. Branch Manager.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1(a). Copy of Notice.
A1(b). Postal Receipt.
A2. Bank pass book.
A3. Copy of Title Deed.
Exhibits for the opposite party:-
Nil.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT,
CDRC, WAYANAD.
