Date of Complaint Filed : 30.04.2014
Date of Order : 24.04.2015
IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CUDDALORE.
Present: Thiru.N.Kaliyamurthi, B.A.,B.L., President.
Tmt.P.Ezhilarasi,. M.A.,M.Phil.,B.Ed., Member.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO: 36/2014
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL 2015, FRIDAY.
Malarvizhi,
W/o.Ramamoorthy,
19/11, Marriamman Koil Street,
Panruti. .. Complainant.
The Branch Manager,
State Bank of India,
Kumbakonam Salai,
Panruti. .. Opposite party.
* * * * * *
This Complaint having come up for hearing on 09.04.2015, in the presence of Thiru.R.Vaitheeswaran, Advocate for the complainant and the opposite party remained exparte on 12.06.2014, after perusing the documents and hearing the argument of Complainant’s side, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum passes the following
ORDER:
Pronounced by the President Thiru.N.KALIYAMURTHI, B.A.,B.L.,:
The Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
1. The Brief facts of the case of the complainant is as follows:
The present complainant along with her husband Ramamoorthy, requested the present opposite party bank to grant loan in the month of January 2013 for the construction of house in that property. As the husband of the complainant Ramamoorthy, was residing abroad (Dubai), with great difficulty he has sent all the necessary papers required by the Bank and complied the formalities. The present complainant has also handed over the title documents as required by the Opposite party bank for the granting of loan amount of Rs.1,36,0000/- . But without any reason in the month of July 2013 the Bank had rejected the loan application and denied to grant the house loan as assured by them,. Due to this negligent and deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite party Bank, the present complainant unable to construct a house which resulted in several sufferings like mental agony, hard ship, and stress. The Bank had also failed to return back the original title documents which also resulted in putting the complainant in the same agony. For which the complainant claimed a sum of Rs.9,90,000/- towards compensation and Rs.s9000/- towards costs of these proceedings.
2. The Opposite party was set exparte:
Notice sent to the opposite party by this Forum and served. But the opposite party was absent on the 1st hearing, after receiving the notice. Hence the opposite party was set exparte on 12.06.2014. Further the case was proceeded on merits.
3. The complainant has filed proof affidavit in support of his defence. To prove her case Ex.A1 to A5 were marked on the side of the complainant. Written argument of the complainant was filed. We heard the complainant’s arguments.
4. The points for consideration are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service as alleged by the
complainant on the part of the opposite party?
2. If so to what extent the relief, the complainant is entitled to?
POINT NOs: 1 & 2:
5. The case of the complainant is that the opposite party herein -the Bank though in the first instance assured to give loan to the complainant and her husband jointly on deposit of title deeds, but in the later stage, without any reason negative the same and had not granted the loan as well as not returned the original title documents which were handed over to the Bank by the complainant.
6. Though the opposite party- the Bank remained exparte in this case and had not appeared before this Forum to respond the allegations of the complainant’s side, the opposite party in its reply to the complainant. In Ex.A5, had stated several reasons for non granting the loan amount as required by the complainant. One of the strong reason was, when the Bank required the present complainant to fix the date for inspection of the landed property (Site) in which the proposed construction of the house is planned by the complainant, the present complainant does not want the Bank officials to visit the site when her husband- the Co-applicant was present in India and if the Bank officials insist the same, in such circumstances she does not required any loan from the Bank. Sanctioning of loan by the Bank will be under some formalities one of the prime formality will be scruitnisation of title documents and personal inspection of the site i.e. the place for construction of building. When the present complainant was not willing and ready to follow these formalities and allow the bank officials to inspect the site, naturally the Bank officials would have their own doubt about the ownership, joint venture by the present complainant and her husband and the construction work carried out by whom. The granting of loan is purely the discretion of the concerned bank Manager. That too only after the thorough scruitnisation of title documents and personal verification of the site and its plan. The present complainant had not paid anything to the Bank for availing their service. In such circumstances, there is no question of service deficiency on the part of the present opposite party Bank. Hence no such relief can be granted to the present complainant under heading of service deficiency on the part of the opposite party-Bank.
7. The other allegation by the complainant’s side is till this date, the original title documents which were given to the opposite party bank by the complainant was not returned back and by which the present complainant has suffered a lot. Though the opposite party bank in its reply notice in Ex.A5, had stated that the original documents given by the complainant at the time of filing loan application were returned back to the complainant on 14.6.2013 and an acknowledgement was also signed by the present complainant. The version was not put forth by the opposite party before this Forum with some authenticated proof like acknowledgement by the present complainant. The opposite party by its conduct not appearing before this Forum and remained exparte. In such circumstances, as there is no proof before this Forum, for the above contention of the bank in their reply notice that all the original title documents were already returned to the complainant. Hence it has to be presumed that the original title documents which were given by the complainant to the opposite party at the time of filing loan application was not returned back to the complainant and hence the opposite party-bank is at fault of not returning back the original title documents. For which the bank has to be penalized accordingly. After denial of loan to the complainant, for non returning of the title documents by the Bank to the complainant, the complainant would have undergone great sufferings and mental worries. For which the opposite party is necessarily to compensate for the same. For the Mental agony and sufferings undergone by the present complainant in this regard, the opposite party Bank is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation with interest at 12% from the date of this complaint along with a sum of Rs.2000/- towards costs of this litigation to the complainant within two month from the date of this order.
8. The Opposite party bank is hereby directed to return back the petition mentioned documents to the complainant within one month from the date of this order, failing which the opposite party has to pay Rs.1000/- per day to the complainant till date of returning of those documents to the complainant. Hence these points are decided accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part. The opposite party-Bank is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation for mental agony and sufferings for non returning of the petition mentioned title documents to the complainant with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of this complaint to till the date of realization along with a sum of Rs.2000/- towards costs of this litigation to the complainant within two months from the date of this order. Further the opposite party is directed to return back the petition mentioned documents to the complainant within one month from the date of this order, failing which the opposite party has to pay Rs.1000/- per day to the complainant till date of returning of those documents to the complainant.
Dictated to Steno Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum, on this the 24th day of April 2015.
(P.EZHILARASI ) (N.KALIYAMURTHI)
MEMBER. PRESIDENT
List of documents filed on the side of the complainant:
Ex.A1 25.07.2008 Xerox copy of the settle deed of complainant.
Ex.A2 19.09.2011 Xerox copy of the title deed of the complainant.
Ex.A3 20.01.2013 Xerox copy of the Power of Attorney given by
Ramamoorthy to Malarvizhi.
Ex.A4 05.07.2013 Office copy of the legal notice issued by the
Complainant’s Advocate to the Opposite party.
Ex.A5 21.07.2013 Reply notice sent by the Opposite party’s advocate
to the Complainant’s Advocate .
* * * * * * *
List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite party:
- NIL -
(P.EZHILARASI ) (N.KALIYAMURTHI)
MEMBER. PRESIDENT
