DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
North 24 Pgs., BARASAT
C.C. No.252/2022
Date of Filing Date of Admission Date of Disposal
23.08.2022 20.09.2022 28 08.2024
Complainant/s:- | Pallab Chowdhury, S/o. Late Biplab Chowdhury, Vill- Dogachia, P.S. Naihati, Dist- North 24 Parganas, Pin 743130. -Vs- |
Opposite Party/s:- | The Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Bangaon Branch, SOL: 012520 Vill-Jessore Road, Bangaqon, P.O. + P.S Bangaon, Dist- North 24 Parganas, Pin-743235. |
P R E S E N T :- Sri. Daman Prosad Biswas……….President.
:- Sri. Abhijit Basu…………………. Member.
JUDGMENT /FINAL ORDER
Complainant alleged that he took loan of Rs. 5,65,000/- from the O.P and on that time deposited Title deed, Parcha, site plan, Conversion certificate of land P.C as collateral security of the said loan. He subsequently paid the entire loan amount to the O.P on 08.09.2021 and after satisfaction the O.P. issued ‘No Dues certificate’.
He further alleged that O.P assured the complainant to return the relevant documents in his favour within a very short time but failed to return the same. Hence the complainant filed this case praying for return of aforesaid documents compensation amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/-,litigation cost of amounting to Rs. 20,000/- and other reliefs.
O.P. appeared in this regard and filed W.V and denied the entire allegations made in the petition contending interalia that the case is not maintainable, case is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties, this commission has no jurisdiction to entertain this case. .
He admitted that he sanctioned loan of Rs. 5,65,000/- in favour of the complainant and same was disbursed on 08.09.2009. He further contended that complainant never deposited his Title Deed with intention to create a valid mortgage as the security of the said loan. The complainant also did not sign the mortgage register of the bank in front of any officer which is the common practice for creation of mortgage under Section 58(F) of the Transfer of Property Act.
He further contended that United Bank of India and Oriental Bank of Commerce have amalgamated with Punjab National Bank and the PNB at that time aforesaid three banks were clubbed together in a single bank. He admitted that complainant closed the loan account. Complainant also failed to disclose the description of the deed or document what he had mortgaged before the bank and also failed to produce any document in respect of mortgage. He prayed for dismissal of the case.
Contd. To Page No. 2 . . . ./
: : 2 : :
C.C. No./252/2022
Decisions with Reasons:-
Complainant in support of his case filed the affidavit-in- chief. O.P. filed questionnaire. Complainant gave answer. O.P also filed affidavit –in –chief. Complainant filed questionnaire and O.P gave answer.
Complainant filed BNA. O..P also filed BNA.
Complainant at the time of filing of this case produced some documents.
We have heard the Ld. Advocate for the complainant and Ld. Advocate for the O.P. at the time of hearing.
We have carefully gone through the aforesaid documents.
It is admitted position that complainant took loan from the O.P amounting to Rs. 5,65,000/- and he subsequently paid the entire amount with interest in favour of the O.P.
On perusal of document dated 08.09.2021 issued by the O.P we find that satisfaction O.P issued ‘No Dues Certificate’ in favour of the complainant. Complainant had paid the entire loan amount vide No. 0125300031569and there are no dues against the complainant. O.P issued the said certificate on 08.09.2021.
On perusal of letter dated 07.10.2021 issued by complainant in favour of the O.P, we find that he stated therein that his deed, settlement record and other papers not yet been returned in his favour.
He also gave another reminder on 11.10. 2021. He also gave another letter on 02.11.2021. He also gave another letter on 08.11.2021. He also gave another letter on 08.11.2021.He also gave another letter on another date. He also gave another letter on 03.12.2021.
In all those letters complainant alleged that O.P not yet returned the aforesaid documents in his favour in spite of closing of loan account.
On perusal of reply issued by the O.P we find that he stated therein with reference to the aforementioned subject and letter dated 07.10.2021 and 02.10.2021 and 25.11.2021 ‘we would like to express our regret for the delay in resolving the issue. Further we would like to inform that we are still searching your file in bank premises which is yet to be traced’.
Contd. To Page No. 3 . . . ./
: : 3 : :
C.C. No./252/2022
As per our policies, you are entitle for a certified copy of the title deed at bank’s cost. We hope this resolution will compensate for the lost time and effort. Complainant seen another letter on 29.12.2021requesting the O.P to return the original deed. Complainant lodged complaint before the Banking Ombudsman and he sent reply dated 20.12.2021. Complainant lodged another E-mail on 30.12.2021 praying for return of aforesaid documents.
On perusal of reply E-mail dt. 25.02.2012, we find that O.P stated therein that they are agreed to provide a certified copy of the deed in favour of the complainant. Complainant sent another letter to the O.P on 27.02. 2022 seeing aforesaid reply in respect of other documents.
In this context we have carefully gone through the documents of Reserve Bank of India dated 01.03.2022 and matter was referred to Ombudsman.
In this context we have carefully gone through the W.V wherein O.P stated that no mortgage document was prepared in respect of the aforesaid loan. He further alleged that complainant did not give any original deed or other original documents. It is very difficult to believe that a bank gave loan without taking the original documents like Title Deed, Parcha etc.
On the other hand it can be safely presumed that O.P after receipt of original document such as Title Deed, Parcha etc. created mortgage documents relating to aforesaid loan as a security of aforesaid loan. Moreover, that documentation has been admitted in the reply of O.P wherein he regretted regarding the allegation. We also find that in the reply dated 23.02.2022. he agreed to provide certificate copy of the aforesaid original deed.
Moreover, O.P failed to provide any satisfactory documents in support of the fact that they without taking any original documents granted loan in favour of the complainant. Accordingly there is no other alternative but to hold that O.P after taking the original title deed and parcha, sanctioned the loan in favour of the complainant. The aforesaid denial of the O.P is nothing but avoiding tendency and same is not accepted.
In view of above, we are of the view that the aforesaid act of O.P is nothing but deficiency in service.
In this context we have carefully gone through the decision of Hon’ble NCDRC reported in 2024(1) CPR 38 (NC).
Contd. To Page No. 4 . . . ./
: : 4 : :
C.C. No./252/2022
We find that Hon’ble NCDRC held ‘that the appellant, therefore could have claimed compensation and also a declaration from the appropriate court with regard to the status of the title of the property for further transactions’ in absence of original deeds.
On careful perusal of record we find that the complainant is the consumer and the opposite party is the service provider.
Having regard to the aforesaid discussion it is clear before us that complainant has able to established his grievance by sufficient documents beyond reasonable doubt and he is entitled to relief as her prayer.
In the result, the present case succeeds.
Hence,
it is
Ordered,
that the present case be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P. with cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by O.P. in favour of the complainant.
O.P. is directed to return the original deed, parcha and the other documents which was deposited by the complainant in favour of the O.P at the time of taking loan positively within two months from this day failing which complainant shall pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation in favour of the complainant within next 45 days failing which the complainant shall have liberty to put this order into execution.
Let a copy of this order be supplied to both the parties as free of cost as per CPR, 2005.
Dictated and Corrected by me
President
Member President
