West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/96/2014

Sri Raghunath Bera - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

14 Jul 2015

ORDER

                                                           DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

 PRESENTS : Before Ld. President : Mr. Bibekananda Pramanik.

                                     Ld. Member   :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                     Ld. Member   :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

                                               Complaint Case No.96/2014

                                                         Sri Raghunath Bera.

                                                                                        ………Complainant.

Vs

                                                        The Branch Manager. State Bank of India, Medinipur Branch

                                                                                                     …………..OP

 For the Complainant : Mr. Somasis Panda, Advocate.

 For the O.P.               : Mr. Sumana Ghori, Advocate.

 

                                    Judgement delivered on: - 14/07/2015

                               

JUDGEMENT

 

 This is an application under Sections 11, 12, 13 & 14 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986,

filed by the complainant Sri Raghunath Bera  against the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Medinipur Branch in the district of Paschim Medinipur.

         The case of the complainants, in brief, is as follows:-

          That the complainant took house building loan of Rs.2,00000/- only on 26/06/2004 from the OP-Bank against deposit of original title deed being No.4099 dated 10/08/99 along with other related documents as equitable mortgage of the said property.  Subsequently, the complainant approached for further loan to the OP-Bank against the aforesaid deposit of title deed as equitable mortgage as per norms of the Bank.  He was asked by the OP-Bank to obtain such report from the empanelled Lawyer of the OP-Bank and accordingly he obtained such report incurring expenses of Rs.6000/-.  Thereafter, the complainant was informed that his previously deposited original title deed was not traceable and as such further loan was not sanctioned in his favour.  The complainant liquidated the entire loan through payment of full amount and there is no dues in respect of the said loan.  After repayment of the entire loan, the complainant repeatedly demanded/asked for return of

the original title deed along with all connected original papers and lastly on 22/03/2013, he made such demand for return of the original title deed and other connected papers.  Since  the request was

not complied,  so the complainant sent a notice to the OP through his Advocate Mr.Sankha Subhra

Contd…….P/2

 

-( 2 ) -

Das on 16/05/2014 and even after  said notice, the OP did not return those documents.  Hence, the complaint,  praying for an order directing the OP-Bank to return the original title deed and other connected papers in default to pay Rs.4,00000/- to the complainant and also directing to pay litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.

OP-Bank has contested this case by filing a written objection.  In their written objection, the OP-Bank has stated that the Bank is unable to admit all the averments,  made in the petition of complaint and they made out no specific case.

                                                Points for decision:-

 

                          Is the complainant entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?

 

                                                Decision with reasons

 

             In this case, we find that the complainant adduced no oral or documentary evidence in this case.  On the contrary, the OP-Bank has examined it’s Chief Manager Sri Dipak Dutta as Pw-1. From the cross-examination of said PW-1, we find that he has admitted that they had sanctioned loan in favour of the complainant Raghunath Bera vide loan Case No.11162096536 and that the said loan amount has been subsequently repaid.  He has further admitted that there is no document to show that they have returned the house building loan document to the lonee.  At the time of hearing of argument, Ld. Lawyer for the OP-Bank submitted that after thorough search, the Bank has been able to trace out the original title deed and other documents of the complainant relating to that loan.  It thus appears that admittedly the OP-Bank has not returned the title deed and other original document which are deposited by the complainant as equitable mortgage at the time of granting such loan.    It is, therefore, held that the  case of the complainant  is proved and he is entitled to the reliefs, as prayed for.

                          Hence, it is,

                                                    ORDERED

                                                                               that the complaint case  under sections 11,12,13 & 14 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 is allowed on contest against the OP-Bank.  OP-Bank is directed to return the original title deed and other connected papers in connection with that loan account to the complainant and to pay litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant within a month from this date of order.      

Dic. & Corrected by me

            

        President                          Member                       Member                       President                                                

                                                                                                                   District Forum

                                                                                                                 Paschim Medinipur.