JUDGEMENT

                   Mr. Purna Chandra Mishra, President.

                             Complainant Kanhaiya lal Agrawal has filed this case u/s 12 of the CP Act-1986 alleging deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party for not returning his property documents inspite of clearing all the loan dues and praying therein for direction to the Opposite Party to return all the documents deposited by him in connection with cash credit account number 50200017167213and pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards mental agony and a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards legal expenses.

1.               Brief fact leading to the case is that the complainant stood as guarenteer for one loan availed by Lakhmania Brothers, Khariar Road.The complainant in order to get rid of his guarantorship, deposited a sum of Rs. 24,21,402.50 on 16.05.2018. After clearing the loan dues, the complainant requested the Opposite Party by correspondence on 08.06.2018, 10.05.2019, 28.05.2019 and 22.08.2019 to return his documents deposited by him. But, the Opposite Party did not release the documents on the  plea of pendency of arbitration case. The complainant provided the certified copy on 07.09.2019 in which orders were passed by the Hon’ble District Judge, Nuapada in Arbitration Case No. 5/2017 for closure of the arbitration case. Even after providing the certified copy of order passed by the Hon’ble District Judge, Nuapada, the Opposite Party did not return his documents for which he filed this case before this Forum for the reliefs as discussed in preceding paragraphs.
2.               After receipt of notice, the Opposite Party appeared through his Advocate and filed written statement. In his written statement, the Opposite Party stated that the complainant stood guarantee for Rs. 40 Lakhs. The present complaint is not maintainable due to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction. Itr is further stated that the claim of the complainant is not maintainable as he stood guarantor in the cash-credit loan facility for Lakshmania Brothers and after receipt of the letter of the complainant, the OP bank seized the transaction in the account and there are no outstanding dues against the cash-credit account. But, the borrower did not come forward to close this account for which this Opposite Party is unable to return the mortgage documents. Therefore, they are unable to release the documents and pray for dismissal of the case against them.

3.               The first and foremost point relating to this case is whether this Forum has got pecuniary jurisdiction to try the dispute ?

4.               The Opposite Party in his written statement has stated that the complainant stood guarantee for a cash-credit loan of Rs. 40 Lakhs. It is admitted by the Opposite Party that the entire loan amount has been cleared and there is no outstanding against the loan accounts. The present dispute relates to non-return of the documents given by the complainant to the Bank at the time of availing the loan. Since the loan amount is cleared, it is not the subject-matter of the dispute. The only dispute is regarding not returning of the documents. So, the objection raised by the Opposite Party in this score is not tenable in the eyes of law and is rejected.
5.               The next point is whether the complainant is entitled to get the documents or not?
6.               It is admitted by the OP Bank that there is no outstanding of loan amount for which the complainant was a guarantor and the bank has freezed the transaction of the account. But, their only plea is that the borrower has not come forward to close the loan account.
7.               The complainant has cleared up the loan account by making payment of Rs. 2421402.50p to clear up the loan dues. This is admitted by the OP. When the loan is cleared for which the complainant stood as guarantor and he has expressed his unwilling ness to continue as his guarantor and on the basis of his representation, the bank has freezed his account and no loan amount is outstanding against the loan account. So the bank has got no cause of action to retain the documents of the guarantor and he should have returned it immediately to the complainant and should have given option to the loanee to provide another guarantor as per their norms or else to discontinue transaction in that account. In the present case, transaction has been freezed. But the Opposite Party has failed to return the documents which is an act of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and such act of the Opposite Party has caused sufficient harassment to the complainant.
8.               As a case of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and harassment is made out against the Opposite Party, he is liable to compensate the petitioner for loss and harassment suffered by him and hence the order.

O R D E R

                   The complaint petition is allowed on contest against the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party is made liable for causing deficiency in service, practicing unfair trade practice and harassment to the complainant. The Opposite Party is directed to return all the documents of the complainant within 24 hours from the time of receipt of this order failing which the bank will be entitled to pay compensation of Rs. 2000/- (Two Thousand) only daily to the complainant so long as the default continues. The Opposite Party is further directed to pay compensation of Rs. 20, 000/- for harassment, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand only) towards cost of litigation. The order is to be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of order failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 12% from the date of order till it is paid to the complainant.