Date of Filing      : 08.01.2019

                                                                                                                  Date of Disposal: 27.07.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

 

 BEFORE  TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law)                 .…. PRESIDENT

                  THIRU.J.JAYASHANKAR, B.A,B.L.,                                                            .....MEMBER-I

                 THIRU.P.MURUGAN,B.Com.                                                                     ....MEMBER-II

CC. No.02/2019

THIS WEDNESDAY, THE 27th DAY OF JULY 2022

 

Mr.A.K.Kuppusamy,

S/o.Kanniyappa Chettiyar,

Illupur Village and Post,

Via-Kanakamachatram,

Thiruthani Taluk, Thiruvallur District -631 204                                      ……Complainant.

 

                                                 //Vs//

The Branch Manager,

Indian Bank,

Thirunindravur Branch,

No.525, CTH Road, Thirunindravur,

Poonamalle Taluk,

Thiruvallur District – 602 024.                                                        ..........Opposite party. 

 

Counsel for the complainant                                                   :   Mr.A.R.Poovannan, Advocate.

Counsel for the opposite party                                               :   Mr.Sushil Kumar, Advocate. 

                         

This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 18.07.2022 in the presence of Mr.A.R.Poovannan, Advocate counsel for the complainant and Mr.Sushil Kumar counsel for the opposite party and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides, this Commission delivered the following: 

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI,   PRESIDENT.

 

This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service in not returning the original documents even after repayment of the entire loan amount along with a prayer to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- in total as damage of Rs.75,000/- per year and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and dereliction of duty and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of this proceedings to the complainant. 

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

 

The case of the complainant was that he had availed agricultural loan of Rs.2,90,000/- from the opposite party Bank and for the purpose of the loan had deposited title Deeds on his property counting 14 original Sale Deeds dated 01.01.1979, 12.08.1985, 13.02.1979, 25.09.1985, 25.09.1985, 11.02.1979, 02.12.1975, 05.12.1975, 02.02.1975, 09.02.1985, 26.10.1985, 06.02.1975, 13.09.1985 and 11.02.1979 with the opposite party Bank. On 12.04.2013 the complainant by one time settlement schemes had paid Rs.15,00,000/-, the entire amount and closed his loan account.  It is further submitted by the complainant that from that date, he was approaching the opposite party for return of the Sale Deeds but the same was not returned for the reason that the said Sale Deeds were filed as documents in a suit filed to recover the money against the complainant in OS.No.15/2014 before ADJ Court, Thiruvallur by the opposite party.  The opposite party for return of the Original documents filed a Copy Application before ADJ Court and then served the copy to the complainant, believing the words of the opposite party the complainant waited for two years. When the complainant made several applications through RTI seeking for information regarding the return of title deeds to him, the applications were returned for some reasons and for others.  Thus the present complaint was filed by the complainant for the reliefs as mentioned below;

1. To direct the opposite party to return back the original Title Deeds of the complainant deposited with the opposite party Bank;

2. To pay a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- in total as damage of Rs.75,000/- per year;

3. To pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and dereliction of duty by the opposite party;

4. To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of this proceedings.

 

Crux of defence by the opposite party:

The opposite party disputing the allegations of the complainant against them and filed written version stating that the loan documents were submitted in a suit filed before Sub-Court, Thiruvallur in OS.No.15/2014 which was transferred to ADJ Court at Thiruvallur.  The suit was decreed as the complainant settled the amount and consequently a full satisfaction memo along with a petition was filed to the competent court for return of documents.  It is submitted that the entire case bundle was sent to Chengalpattu District Court and the delay is in the office of the ADJ Court, Thiruvallur and its staffs in calling for the records from the District Court, Chengalpattu and hence the opposite party cannot be questioned and held liable.  Thus stating that the opposite party is not holding any documents and all the documents were submitted before the Court and that the necessary steps have been taken by the opposite party Bank to return all documents. Thus contending that there is no deficiency in service they sought for the dismissal of the complaint.

The complainant filed proof affidavit and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 were marked.  On the side of opposite party proof affidavit was filed but no documents were submitted on their side.

Point for consideration:

Whether the act of the opposite party in not returning the original documents pledged with them to the complainant even after   the closer of all the loans amounted to deficiency in service and if so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?

Point:

On the side of the complainant the following documents were filed in support of the complaint allegations;

The Certificate issued by the opposite party with regard to the closer of the Agricultural loan by the complainant dated 12.04.2013 was marked as Ex.A1;

Copy of the Copy Application made by the opposite party to the ADJ Court, Thiruvallur requesting for return of documents was marked as Ex.A2;

Letter issued by the complainant to the opposite party dated 18.06.2018 seeking for return of the documents was marked as Ex.A3;

The reply filed under RTI by the complainant was marked as Ex.A4;

Letter by the complainant to the opposite party under RTI dated 07.08.2018 seeking for return of documents was marked as Ex.A5;

The return cover was marked as Ex.A6;

  It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant that the 14 original Sale Deeds deposited with the opposite party was not returned till today though the entire Agricultural Loan was settled as early as on 12.04.2013.  On the side of opposite party the learned counsel submitted and sought for some time stating that the documents were deposited before Sub-Court, Thiruvallur for the purpose of suit filed for recovery of money from the complainant in OS.No.15/2014 which was transferred to ADJ Court at Thiruvallur and also transfer the entire case bundles were sent to Chengalpattu District Court and yet the ADJ, Court, Thiruvallur has to get the documents from the Chengalpattu District Court.  It is further submitted by him that they have taken necessary steps by filing proper Copy Application before the ADJ Court, for returning all the documents and this fact was made known to the complainant and on that score it is argued that there is no deficiency in service on their part and sought for some more time for receipt of documents from the Court and to return the same to the complainant.

On perusal of all the documents submitted by the complainant and on appreciating the arguments advanced by the both parties.  It is amply proved that the Agricultural Loan received by the complainant was closed as early as on 12.04.2013 evident by Ex.A1, which fact is not disputed by the opposite party.  The only defence raised by the opposite party is that the 14 Original Sale Deeds which had been filed in the Court in the suit filed for recovery of money against the complainant herein was not returned by the Court and hence they cannot be held responsible for the non return of all the documents to the complainant.  They have also filed proof for filing copy application before ADJ Court, Thiruvallur seeking for return all the documents filed in the suit.  It is also admitted by both the parties that the suit has been decreed and has been settled by the complainant by way of One Time Settlement.  In such circumstances it is the duty of the opposite party to take necessary steps to receive the documents from the court and to return the same to the complainant.  Except filing xerox copy of the copy application there is no proof submitted by the opposite party to show that they have taken any diligent steps to follow and to get the documents from the court.  At the time arguments we also granted sufficient time to the opposite party to approach the concerned court and to take necessary steps for getting the documents back but of no use. A memo was also filed by the opposite party which was recorded by this Commission that on verification from Thiruvallur court record, it is seen that except ADJ court records all other court records were received by the Thiruvallur District Court from Chengalpattu Court records. Based on the memo we cannot exonerate the opposite party from its liability/duty to return the documents to the borrower once the loan was entirely cleared by him. Hence the opposite party in not returning the title deeds deposited with them even after issuing full satisfaction memo amounted to clear deficiency in service.  Thus we hold that the opposite party had committed clear deficiency in service.  

With regard to the relief to be granted to the complainant it is proper to direct to the opposite party to take necessary steps to receive the documents from the court and to return it to the complainant within certain period or in alternative to take all steps at their own cost to issue a certified copy of all documents along with an indemnity bond. We award Rs.25,000/-as compensation for the mental agony and hardships suffered by the complainant and also Rs.10,000/- towards cost of this proceedings to the complainant. Thus we answer the point accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite Party 

a) to return the 14 Original Title Deeds to the complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order or in alternative to take steps to issue certified copy along with indemnity bond for all the documents at their own cost  within six weeks from the date of copy of this order;

b) to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant;

c) to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards cost of this proceedings to the complainant; 

Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 27th day of July 2022.

 

Sd/-                                                         Sd/-                                                               Sd/-

MEMBER-II                                       MEMBER-I                                               PRESIDENT

 

 

List of document filed by the complainant:-

 

Ex.A1 12.04.2013 Loan Documents Certificte issued by the opposite party. Xerox

Ex.A2 ................ Copy of the return of documents and Application. Xerox

Ex.A3 18.06.2018 Letter by the opposite party. Xerox

Ex.A4 04.07.2018 Reply by the Public Information Officer. Xerox

Ex.A5 07.08.2018 Letter by the complainant. Xerox

Ex.A6 .............. Returned Cover. Xerox

 

 

 

List of documents filed by the opposite party:-

 

 

Nil

 

 

Sd/-                                                                 Sd/-                                                       Sd/-

MEMBER-II                                               MEMBER-I                                       PRESIDENT