Judgment : Dt.8.6.2017
Mrs. Balaka Chatterjee, Member
This petition of complaint filed under Section12 of C.P.Act by Biswajeet Das and Sipra Das alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties – (1) The Branch Manager, Federal Bank Ltd., (2) The Chief Manager, Federal Bank Ltd. (referred as ‘OP’ hereinafter).
Case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant No.2 who is the sole proprietor of M/s Karunamoyee Enterprise and also mother of the Complainant No.1 availed a loan from the Opposite Party Bank against mortgaging their flat by depositing the original title Deed being No.3488 of 94 with the Opposite Parties and the Complainant No.1 remained as guarantor in respect of the aforesaid loan. It is further stated by the Complainant that as on 27.3.2010 there was an outstanding amount of Rs.11,00,000/- in respect of the said loan and an amount of Rs.8,50,000/- was the outstanding amount in respect of another loan availed by Sri Sanjib Das, the elder son of Complainant No.2 for his business under name and style M/S Grand Prix and both the accounts were settled as full and final settlement. Accordingly, as per terms of the aforesaid settlement the OP No.2 issued “no dues” certificate on 27.3.2010 and verbally assured the Complainant of handing over the mortgaged title Deed within a week. It is further stated by the Complainant that after lapse of considerable time that the Complainants visited the office of the OPs for collecting their Original Title Deed but the OPs handed over the petitioners letter dt.12.4.2010 addressed to their Ld. Advocate requesting him to withdraw the suit being No.O.A. 51 of 2005 pending before the Debt recovery tribunal and to get back original Title Deed of the mortgaged property. It is stated by the Complainants that they again visited the office of the OP No.2 on 18.6.2012 who further issued another letter whereby they had claimed that they applied to the Ld. Debt recovery tribunal for returning the said Title Deed and on receipt of the same they would hand over the said deed to the Complainants. The Complainants further stated that the OPs did not return the said deed and the Complainant No.2 made further representation on 1.8.2016 for returning the Title Deed being No.3488 of 1994 within 15 days from the receipt of the aforesaid letter. It is specifically stated by the complaint that on 8.1.2017 they received one order from the Debt recovery tribunal (III) along with copy of IA No.1129 of 2016 wherefrom they have come to know that the Debt Recovery Tribunal (III) was pleased to pass an order on 21.12.2016 directing the registry to return the title deed if any filed by the applicant Bank and receiving this letter the OP No.1 made a representation on 19.1.2017 whereby he requested the Bank to return the aforesaid Title Deed but the OP Bank did not hand over the same till date. The Complainants further stated that the Complainant No.2 and wife of Complainant No.1 are suffering from various ailments for which they are in need of medical treatment and for making arrangement for the treatment; the Complainant No.1 was in need of money which they could have been arranged by further mortgaging the said property. It is the specific allegation made by the Complainants that Opposite Parties made by the Complainant that OPs have applied don 16.12.2016 for withdrawal of the OA No.51 of 2005 and return the Title Deed, whereas the OPs communicated on 27.03.2010 stating falsely that they had already applied for return of the document and thus failed to understand the sufferings of the Complainants.
Hence the Complainants have filed the instant case praying for an order directing the OPs to return the Title Deed being No.3488 of 94, to pay compensation of Rs.8,50,000/- along with Rs.50,000/- towards litigation costs.
Notices were served upon the OPs but they did not turn up. So, the case was fixed for ex-parte proceeding against them vide order No.7 dt.11.5.2017.
The Complainants adduced evidence on affidavit.
In course of hearing Ld. Advocate for the Complainants submitted that the Complainant No.2 availed a loan disbursed by the OP Bank against keeping the residential unit under mortgage and thus keeping Title Deed of the residential unit under custody of the OP Bank but, subsequently, the loan (including another loan availed by the elder son of the Complainant No.2) has been liquidated as on 27.03.2010 and since then the Complainant has been knowing the door of the OP Bank for returning the Title Deed but each and every occasion the OP No.2 gave them false assurance of returning the said Title Deed shortly but facts remain that the Bank has applied for withdrawal of the said document on 16.12.2016 and this inordinate delay has caused sufferings to the Complainant since the medical treatment which is required for the Complainant No.2 and wife of the Complainant No.1 has not been administered due to lack of money which could have been arranged by availing any loan keeping the residential unit on mortgage and for such act the OPs are liable to compensate the Complainants.
Decision with reason
The Complainants have stated that a loan was obtained by the Complainant No.2 disbursed in favour of M/s Karunamoyee Enterprise. The Complainants claimed to have liquidated the said loan. The copy of the ‘No due’ Certificate dt.27th March,2010, issued by the Federal Bank Limited shows that the said loan by compromised settlement has been liquidated. It further appears from the statement dt.18.6.2012 issued by the Federal Bank that the said Bank stated to have applied for return of the Title Deed No.3488/94 in the name of Sipra Das before the DRT-III. However, order being No.31 dated 21.12.2016 passed by the Ld. DRT-III shows that the Bank filed a put up petition on 19.12.2016 seeking closure/withdrawal of the matter being T.A./2080 (arising out of OA 51/2005) and also prayed for return of the Title Deed in original.
This order reveals that the Bank is very much negligent in returning the original Title Deed deposited with them as co-lateral security which is an example of deficiency in service on the part of the Bank for which the Bank is to compensate the Complainants.
The Complainant is entitled to get back the Title Deed since the loan in respect of which the same was deposited, has been liquidated. We think it will be just and proper if the OP Bank pays Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation.
In the result, the Consumer Complaint succeeds in part.
Hence,
ordered
That the Consumer Complaint being No.111/2017 is allowed in part ex-parte with cost of Rs.10,000/- against the OPs.
The OPs are directed to return the Title Deed being No.3488 of 94 to the Complainants within 15(fifteen) days from the date of communication of this order.
The OPs are further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation to the Complainant within the aforesaid period failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.. for the default period till realisation thereof in full.
