Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/283/2015

A.V.Udhaya Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank - Opp.Party(s)

E.D.Sethupathi

29 Apr 2022

ORDER

                    Date of Complaint Filed : 14.07.2015

                    Date of Reservation      : 06.04.2022                                                                                  Date of Order               : 28.04.2022                                                                                                                 

                            

 

    DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B JIJAA, M.L.,                                         : PRESIDENT

                      THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,           :  MEMBER  I 

                   THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,     : MEMBER II

  

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.283 /2015

FRIDAY, THE 29^th DAY OF APRIL 2022

 

A.V. Udhayakumar,                                                                                

S/o. A.J. Venugopal,

No.1/112, Maxworth Nagar, Phase – 1,

Kolapakkam, Chennai – 600 128.                                                                                                  ... Complainant                          

 

..Versus..

1.The Branch Manager,

   Indian Overseas Bank,

   Porur Branch,

   Chennai – 600 116.

 

2.The Branch Manager,

   Indian Overseas Bank,

   Virugambakkam Branch,

   Chennai -600 116.                                                                                                                      ...  Opposite Parties

 

******

Counsel for the Complainant          : M/s. E.D. Sethupathi

Counsel for the Opposite Parties     : M/s. P.R. Venkatesh Masethung

 

        On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Counsel for Complainant and the Counsel for the Opposite Parties we delivered the following:

 

ORDER

Pronounced by the President Tmt. B. Jijaa, M.L.,

1.       The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 under section  12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to return back the entire original documents along with missing page No.1 of the Document No.2963/2004 which was handed over at the time of availing Housing Loan in No.350400016 and to pay a sum of Rs.9,90,000/- as compensation towards the sufferings and mental agony sustained and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost.

        The Complainant has filed Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 were marked on the side of Complainant. The Opposite Parties has filed Version, Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. No documents were marked on the side of Opposite Parties.

2.      The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

        The Complainant approached 1^st Opposite Party in the year 2004 for availing housing loan and had produced all the documents required by the 1^st Opposite party in Original for availing the loan and after verifying and scrutinising of the documents the first Opposite Party had sanctioned the housing loan for the Complainant. The Complainant had availed Housing Loan in No.350400016 from 1^st Opposite Party in the year 2004 for a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- by mortgaging the Document No.2963/2004 and paid the instalments regularly without fail. The Complainant further states that the Complainant had paid the entire loan dues on 06.03.2015 and cleared the Loan in No.350400016. After clearing the entire dues the Complainant was informed by the 1^st Opposite Party, that original property document  in  document No.2963/2004 and the documents vested at the time of granting loan were all kept in the 2^nd Oppsoite Party bank i.e., Indian Overseas Bank, Virugambakkam Branch. When the Complainant went to the 2^nd Opposite Party branch in Virugambakkam to get back the original documents he got shock and surprise that the first page of the Document No.2963/2004  did not exist and page No.1 of the document was missing. The Complainant  had informed about the missing of the page No.1 of the document with 2^nd Opposite Party  and for that it was informed by the 2^nd Opposite Party that ‘the Complainant had to give a representation regarding the missing of the first page of the document. The Complainant gave a written representation dated 13.04.2015 to the Opposite Parties which was received by the Opposite Parties and no action was taken regarding the missing first page of the original document, and the missing page No.1 of the Document No.2963/2004 was not returned back to the Complainant. The Complainant  was regularly enquiring about the missing page No.1 of the Document No.2963/2004 in person with 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties. The Complainant  was made to run from pillar to post and no fruitful result was given to the Complainant for the reasons best known to 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties. The Complainant had paid the entire Housing loan amount and cleared the dues and the act of not answering about the missing page No.1 of  Document No.2963/2004 by the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties and the negligent attitude by both the parties amounts to deficiency in service. The Complainant issued a legal notice through his Counsel to the 1^st , 2^nd Opposite Parties dated 21.05.2015. The Opposite Parties received the notice and had not complied the grievance of the Complainant and had sent a reply notice dated 09.06.2015 stating that there was no fault on the part of the Opposite Parties. The Complainant submits that in the aforesaid circumstances the Opposite Parties are liable to pay compensation for the mental agony suffered by the Complainant and also for the deficiency in service, negligence and carelessness committed by the Opposite Parties. The Complainant states that he had suffered great hardship, severe mental agony. The Complainant states that the 1^st Opposite Party Bank from which the complainant had availed the Housing Loan and the 2^nd Opposite Party bank where the original documents were  kept under the custody are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation for the sufferings caused due to the negligent act, for the deficiency in service, negligent act committed by Opposite Parties by non-compliance to the representation made by the Complainant. Hence the complaint.  

3.  The Version of the Opposite Parties are as follows:-

        The Opposite Parties Bank, is a Nationalised Bank having a good reputation and is rendering financial service to the public. The Complainant had submitted the original documents including Document No.2963 of 2004. However, he had not submitted the first page of the same. This was  noted on the remaining part of the said original deed and informed to the Complainant. However, the Complainant failed to deposit the said first page. As the document was genuine and reflected in the Encumbrance Certificate, this did not affect the mortgage rights of the Opposite Parties Bank. The Bank had applied for and obtained Certified copy of the said Document. The contents excepting the first page had tallied. Therefore, and also due to the fact that the documents being transferred from the 1^st  Opposite Party to 2^nd Opposite Party for safe keeping the matter was not pursued further. It is true that he made representation before the Opposite Parties and that the said first page was missing. However, it is false to state that he had deposited the same with the Bank and the bank failed to return the same to him. Though the Complainant had not deposited the first page of the original document No.2963 of 2004, the managers and employees searched for the same within their records and the same was never found, as the Complainant had not deposited the same. Further it was never the intention of the Opposite Parties to cause any inconvenience to the Complainant. There is no negligence nor deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties. The Complainant had caused a legal notice making the above false allegations. The Opposite Parties had caused a reply notice stating the true facts. Though the Complainant had deposited his original title document without the first page, a loan was extended to him due to his other eligibilities. The Opposite Parties are also willing to fully co-operate with the complaint for any alternative remedy including making of a complaint to the Police and to make publication and obtaining of certificate from the Police. The Opposite Parties are willing to return to the Complainant the documents as deposited by him and as available. However, the Complainant is unwilling to accept the same. The Complainant is not entitled to any such relief that are prayed.

4.   Points for Consideration are as follows:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled to get reliefs as claimed in the complaint?

3. To what other relief the Complainant is entitled to?

5.   Point No.1

        The undisputed facts are that the Complainant had availed Housing Loan from the 1^st Opposite Party for a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- by mortgaging the Original Title Deed in Document No.2963/2004, (Ex.A1). It is evident from Ex.A2 that the Complainant had paid the entire Housing Loan. As such the 1^st opposite Party had requested the 2^nd Opposite Party to release the Title Deeds deposited by the Complainant with the Opposite Parties. From Ex.A3  it is evident that 1^st page of Document No.2963/2004 was missing and hence refused to take back the original Title Deed.

        The contention of the Opposite Parties is that the Complainant had not submitted the first page of Document No.2963 of 2004. That was noted on the remaining part of the said original Deed, which was also informed to the Complainant. However, the Opposite Parties have not produced any documentary proof to show that at the time of deposit of Title Deeds itself the 1^st page was missing. Moreover, it was also contended that even after search for the said document in their office, it was never found. Therefore, as contended by the Complainant, the Opposite Parties after having received the entire loan amount have failed to return the entire Original Title Deeds to the Complainant which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, causing mental agony and hardship to the Complainant.

        Therefore we are of the considered view that the Opposite Parties by not returning back the entire original documents including the Document No.2963/2004 which was handed over by the Complainant at the time of availing Housing Loan in No.350400016 amounts to deficiency of service. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered against the Opposite Parties.

6.     Point No.2:-

        One of the main relief sought for by the Complainant is to return back the entire original documents along with missing page No.1 of the Document No.2963/2004 which was handed over at the time of availing Housing Loan in No.350400016 from the 1^st Opposite Party. Admittedly, the Complainant has cleared the Housing loan with the 1^st Opposite Party and he has been          requested to collect the originals from the 2^nd Opposite Party, where on receipt of the original document the Complainant found that the 1^st page of Document No.2963/2004 missing and refused to collect the original Document from the Opposite Parties. Though the Opposite Parties contend that the Complainant had not submitted the 1^st page of Document No.2963/2004 and the same was noted in the remaining part of the said Document, no such proof to show that the Complainant had submitted Document No.2963/2004 except page No.1, has been filed before this Commission and further no alternative steps has been taken by the Opposite Parties to secure the interest of the Complainant in respect of the missing page in Document No.963/2004 as mentioned in their written version till date, further had admitted that the Opposite Parties had searched for the missing 1^st page of Document No.2963/2004 at the 2^nd Opposite Party’s Branch and could not be found. Hence it is clear that the  Opposite Parties have committed  deficiency of service in returning back the original document as submitted by the complainant. In the said circumstances as the 1^st page of Document No.2963/2004 is found to be non traceable, we are of the considered view that the Opposite Parties be directed to take alternate steps to secure the interest of the Complainant in respect of missing page in Document No.2963/2004 in the manner known to law  within 8 weeks from the date of order, on failure to do so, the Opposite Parties shall       compensate to the Complainant for not returning back the missing 1^st page of Document No.2963/2004. Accordingly point No.2 is answered in favour of the complainant.

7.     Point No.3 :-

        As the reliefs sought for is granted in part, the Complainant is not entitled for any other reliefs.        

 

In the result, this complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties are directed to take alternate steps to secure the interest of the Complainant in respect of the missing page No.1 of Document No.2963/2004 in the manner known to law and to return back the other original documents which was handed over by the Complainant at the time of availing Housing Loan No. 350400016 within 8 weeks, failing compliance,  the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties are directed jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to the Complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) as compensation towards the sufferings and mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards litigation cost to the Complainant, within 8 weeks from the date of this order.

If above amounts is not paid within 8 weeks, the said amounts shall be paid with interest at the rate of 6% p.a from the date of order till the date of payment.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on this the 29^th  day of April 2022.

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                           PRESIDENT

 

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:

 

Ex.A1	02.08.2004	Copy of the Document No.2963/2004
Ex.A2	04.03.2015	Housing Loan Clearance Receipt
Ex.A3	07.03.2015	Representation of Complainant
Ex.A4	21.05.2015	Legal Notice
Ex.A5	09.06.2015	Reply Notice

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:-

 

      Nil

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                       PRESIDENT