The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is the Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Balasore Branch, Balasore and O.P No.2 is the Director, Indian Overseas Bank, Central Office, Annasalai, Chennai.

                    1. Factual matrix of the dispute is that the Complainant, being a Consumer before the O.Ps had availed one housing loan for Rs.1,40,000/- from O.P No.1, out of sanctioned amount of Rs.2.00 Lacs in the year 2005 basing on the legal opinion of their Advocate. Accordingly, the Complainant submitted all original land documents such as original sale deed bearing No.1885, dt.19.03.2004, original lease deed No.6735, dt.18.10.2004, M.S.R.O.R for Khata No.39/9, E.C for the land, Rent receipt dt.14.10.2004 and information of Plot index before the O.P No.1. Thereafter, the Complainant had cleared up the entire loan dues prior to the due date fixed by O.P No.1, but the O.Ps did not return the above mentioned original land documents to the Complainant. At the time of need, while the Complainant demands for return of his original land documents, the O.Ps did not pay any heed to it, rather sanctioned a loan in favour of the Complainant. And, accordingly the O.Ps have sanctioned loans to the Complainant at least in 4-5 occasions. But, the O.Ps have not returned the original land documents to the Complainant till date. As a result, the Complainant issued legal notice through his Advocate to the O.Ps on 16.11.2015 praying for return of original land documents, but the O.Ps have not responded the same.  The last loan sanctioned by the O.Ps amounting to Rs.2.00 Lacs to the Complainant, where the Complainant has stopped paying the installments after payment of two installments only due to their misbehavior illegal activities and unauthorized loan sanctioned by the O.Ps, basing on the above said original land documents. Moreover, the Complainant may not pay the same loan amount without getting his original land documents from the O.Ps. Prayer for payment of Rs.5.00 Lacs towards unauthorized sanctioned loan amount, mental harassment, deficiency of Consumer services and litigation cost.

                    2. O.P No.1 appeared through their Advocate and filed written version, where they have denied about maintainability, limitation as well as its cause of action. They have also submitted that the Complainant had availed one housing loan for Rs.1.80 Lacs on 21.03.2005 vide loan account No.350500004 from O.P No.1 and accordingly he deposited the title deed on 21.03.2005 before the O.P No.1. Thereafter, the Complainant closed the said loan on 11.04.2011 and received back his documents putting his signature in the required column in the title deed register. Further, the Complainant has availed loan vide loan Account No.311300026 on 04.11.2013 and another loan vide loan Account No.311400025 on 16.10.2014, but he did not deposit title deed for securing those small loan towards security in shape of mortgage of land was not necessary. Moreover, these two loans were not housing loans. Loan availed by the Complainant on dt.16.10.2014 slipped to NPA (Non-Performing Assets), then the O.P No.1 initiated follow up action for NPA recovery like reminding the Complainant time and again for liquidation of the above said loan account and as such the Complainant being aggrieved on the O.P No.1 filed this vexations complaint in order to harass this O.P and to defame the Bank as a whole. The O.P No.1 further submitted that this O.P No.2 is non-existing Party, as there is no designated post of Director of O.P-Bank, hence this proceeding is bad for mis-joinder of Party. Moreover, the Complainant has claimed that he deposited his title deed in the year 2005 and the said loan was closed on 11.04.2011 and if at all he did not get his title deed, he would have lodged the complaint within a period of two years from the due date, while it became to get return of title deed i.e. on 12.04.2011. Since, the Complainant has not done such within a period of two years, the complaint is barred of limitation.    

                    3. Though sufficient opportunities were given to the O.P No.2, but the O.P No.2 did not appear in the case, so the O.P No.2 is set ex-parte.

                    4. In view of the above averments of both the Parties, the points for determinations of this case are as follows:-

(i) Whether the Complainant is a Consumer under provision of C.P Act.

(ii) Whether there is a cause of action to file this case.

(iii) Whether this Consumer case is maintainable as per Law.

(iv) To what relief the Complainant is entitled for ? 

                    5. In view of the contrary averments of the Parties in order to substantiate the same, the Complainant has filed certain documents in support of his claim, but O.P No.1 has not filed any document. Perused the same. It has been argued on behalf of the Complainant that he has availed the loan amount of Rs.1,40,000/- out of sanctioning amount of Rs.2.00 Lacs by furnishing the required land documents in Indian Overseas Bank, Balasore Branch (i.e. O.P No.1), the details of documents have been mentioned in his complaint petition. After repayment of the same, the O.P No.1 did not return the original documents and sanctioned further loans in his favour also in 4-5 occasions, but did not return his original land documents. The last loan amount availed was Rs.2.00 Lacs, in which two installments have been paid by the Complainant and thereafter, payment was stopped by the Complainant due to misbehavior, illegal activities of the O.P No.1 and unauthorized sanction of loan basing on the above original documents, for which he claimed compensation for Rs.5 Lacs from the O.P No.1-Bank, details of which are mentioned hereunder:-

(i) Unauthorized sanctioned loan amount        Rs.2,00,000/-

(ii) Mental harassment for 10 years                 Rs.2,50,000/-

(iii) Deficiency of Consumer services             Rs.   40,000/-

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­                    Total                                             Rs.5,00,000/- (Five Lakhs) Only

The Complainant has prayed for payment of such amount only and he has remained silent about return of his original documents from the O.P No.1-Bank. On the other hand, It has been argued on behalf of the O.P No.1-Bank that Complainant has availed loan of Rs.1.80 Lacs vide loan Account No.350500004 by depositing the title deed on 21.03.2005 and it was closed on 11.04.2011 and on the same date, he received back his documents having endorsed his signature in the required column in title deed register. Other loans availed by him subsequently do not relate to deposit of title deed. The Complainant defaulted in paying the loan installments, for which his account was slipped to Non-Performing Assets (NPA). But in support of his argument regarding return of his land documents, no material documents has been furnished by the O.P No.1, but the fact remained that the Complainant has not claimed to receive his title deed. But strangely enough, the Complainant has not prayed anything regarding return of his documents in the complaint petition, rather he has prayed for only compensation, details of which have been mentioned above. It shows that the Complainant is not interested for return of his title deed, but he is only interested for compensation. Admittedly, he is a defaulter to payment of Bank loans, for which his account was slipped to Non-Performing Assets (NPA). So, the Bank Authority is at liberty to realize the loan amount as per Law. Further strangely enough, the Complainant in paragraph-3 of his affidavit, which is part of the complaint petition, has mentioned clearly as follows:-        “That, I know all the mentioned story in this case, which written by my Advocate. Hence, this affidavit.” So, in this affidavit, he admits that the contents of his complaint petition is a story written by his Advocate. So, he himself admitted the complaint petition as a story and did not require for return of his documents and only wants for compensation.              

                    6. So, now on careful consideration of all the materials available in the case record, this Forum is of the opinion that though the Complainant is a Consumer, there is no cause of action to file this case and this case is not maintainable as per Law and also there is no deficiency of service on the part of the O.P No.1-Bank and Complainant has not come to this Forum in clean hand when specifically the Complainant is a defaulter for payment of loan, he is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Hence, this Consumer case is liable to be dismissed. Hence, Ordered:-        

                                                     O R D E R

                         The Consumer case is dismissed on contest against the O.P No.1 and on ex-parte against the O.P No.2, but in the peculiar circumstances without any cost.

                         Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 7th day of June, 2017 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.