Orissa

Sambalpur

CC/28/2016

Sri Sudhansu Sekhar Mahapatra - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

A. Panigrahi

18 Jul 2022

ORDER

PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer Case No-28/2016

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member,

Sri. Sudhansu Sekhar Mahapatra,

S/O-Debendranath Mahapatra, Occupation-Retd. Navy Service,

R/O-New Colony, Sakhipara, Near convent School

PS-Dhanupali, 

PO/Dist- Sambalpur, Odisha.                                                  …..Complainant

 

Vrs.

1. The Branch Manager,

State Bank of India, Sambalpur Branch (00175),

At/PO-Sambalpur, PS-Town,

•  

2. The Chairman, SBI Corporate Centre,

State Bank Bhawan, Madam Cama Road,

Mumbai-400021, Maharastra..….Opp. Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant      :-Sri. A.Panigrahi Advocate & Associates.
2. For the O.P.s                    :- Sri. A.K. Das, Advocate & Associates.

 

DATE OF HEARING : 04.07.2022, DATE OF JUDGEMENT :18.07.2022

Presented by Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, PRESIDENT.

1. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant is a retired (POR) Indian Navy personnel and purchased Ac 0.44 desc of land pertaining to M.S. Khata No. 644/522 of Sakhigopinath morza. Sambalpur, obtained a house-building loan from O.P. No.1 on application dated 18.10.2004 for Rs. 2,50,000/-. The loan A/C No. 108565971338. The Complainant submitted all his land documents, building plan, rent receipts etc. The loan was cleared up on 25.03.2015 and the complaint asked the O.P. No.1 to return documents the O.P. told to come on next-day. Again and again several requests made but it was in vain. Complaint was made before Banking Ombudsman vide complaint No. 20151600-3000520 dated 01.09.2015 but only certified copies were supplied. Due to non return of the documents the Complainant is harassed and it amounts to deficiency in service of the O.Ps.
2. The O.Ps after appearance admitted the allegation of the Complainant but denied the deficiency in service. The O.Ps have a lot of files of the loanees and the file of the Complainant has been misplaced. The documents were kept in strong room and prayed for substitution of certified copies in place of originals. O.Ps are not negligent and any compensation and relief as sort for.
3. The Complainant filed an amendment petition on 25.06.2018 and after hearing the amendment was allowed. In the prayer prayed that the O.ps be directed to pay compensation of Rs. 8.00 lakhs only for not returning the original documents claimed an additional compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to-wards in conveniences, mental agony, harassment etc. for the negligence of the O.Ps.
4. After perusal of the pleadings of both the parties and documents filed the following issues are framed:
103606587.  

1. Non return of security land documents by the O.Ps to the Complainant whether amounts to deficiency in service of the O.Ps and negligence?
2. What relief the Complainant is entitled for ?

ISSUE NO.1: Non return of security land documents by the O.Ps to the Complainant whether amounts to deficiency in service of the O.Ps and negligence?

          The Complainant has made several correspondences to the O.Ps for return of his original land documents but the O.Ps failed to return. The O.Ps submitted that the loan file has not been lost but misplaced. The original documents of the Complainant are kept in strong room with due care and caution as per the banking rules and regulations.

          Original documents are always original and certified copies can not be substituted in its place. The original documents are linked with emotions, hard labour of the owner. For evidence purpose the certified copies are for use. The O.P.s admitted that the Complainant has repaid the loan amount with interest. It was the duty of the O.Ps to return the originals when loan is closed. Non return of documents in time amounts to deficiency in service of the O.Ps and is a clear proof of negligence, whatever term either ‘lost’ or ‘misplaced’ is used. The Complainant knocked the door of O.Ps, Banking ombudsman but failed.

          The issue is answered in favour of the Complainant.

ISSUE NO.2 What relief the Complainant is entitled for ?

          The Complainant cited first Appeal No. 288/2014 of the Hon’ble National Commission in Mayyanand Regional Co-operative Bank, Mayyanadu, Kollam Vs. Ebrahimkulty case. The Hon’ble National Commission allowed the complaint.

          The O.Ps filed a decision of the State C.D.R.C, Kerala, B.M. SBI vs Thomas K.P. case. In the said order also the complaint was allowed with certain modifications.

          The O.Ps are negligent in their service but it is not willful. For the negligence of the O.Ps the Complainant suffered a lot. The O.P. No.1 it is letter dated 16.10.2015 categorically stated that in Housing loan A/C 108569713389 “Original land documents are not tracable”. To satisfy vide letter dated 22.10.2015 requested to receive the certified copies. Thereafter the Complainant came to the Forum/Commission for Redressal.

          For non return of original land documents the O.Ps are liable, accordingly it is ordered.

ORDER

          The Complaint is allowed on contest. The O.Ps are directed to return the original land documents of the Complainant within one month of this order, failing which the O.Ps are liable to pay compensation of Rs. 8.00 lakhs and Rs. 50,000/- to-wards mental agony, and litigation expenses.

          In case of non-compliance of this order the entire amount will carry interest @12% w.e.f 25.03.2015 till realisation. The Complainant is directed to deposit deficit jurisdiction fees.

          Order pronounced in the open Court today on 18^th day of July, 2022

          Supply free copies to the parties.