Tamil Nadu

Thoothukkudi

CC/49/2013

Arumuganainar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Mr.P.Ramesh

03 Feb 2015

ORDER

Filed on:27/03/2013.

                                                                                 Disposed on:03/02/2015.

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM TUTICORIN.

Present: Thiru.M.Chinnapandi, B.A., B.L., President,

Thiru.Dr.S.Leonard Vasanth., M.A., LL.B., Ph.D., Member I.

Tmt.K.Rosy Anne Florence, M.A., M.Phil, B.Ed., Member II,

(Tuesday the 3^rd day of February 2015)

CONSUMER COMPLAINT.NO:49/2013.

Arumuga Nainar,

S/o.Karuppasamy,

Door No.45, 7^th Street, Anna Nagar,

Thoothukudi.                                                                                  ...Complainant.

 

                               ..vs..

 

The Branch Manager,

State Bank of Travancore,

VVD Signal, Palay Road,

Thoothukudi.                                                                              … Opposite party.

 

                   This complaint came before us for final hearing on 6-1-2015 in the presence of Thiru P.Ramesh, Advocate for the complainant and Thiru S.Aravazhi, Advocate for the opposite party and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:

ORDER

Thiru.M.Chinnapandi, President.

          1) The points for consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the document from the opposite party?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled compensation and if so what is the quantum?

          2) Points 1 & 2: In the year 1980 the complainant has borrowed Rs.5,000/- from the opposite party bank by depositing his original title deed.  The debt was not paid by the complainant therefore the opposite party bank filed a suit before the District Munsif Court Tuticorin in O.S.No.496/1984 to recover the debt.  It appears that the suit was decreed and the debt was also discharged in the year 1998.  The opposite party bank has issued loan closure certificate which is marked as Ex.A1.  Ex.A1 is dated 12-7-2000.  Though the loan was closed long back the complainant requested the bank to return his original title deed but the bank has not returned it therefore he filed a complaint to direct the opposite party bank return the original title deed and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for deficiency of service.

          3) The opposite party bank filed written version contending that the document was filed along with the suit as it was very old case the bundle could not be traced and only after tracing the bundle the availability of the document would be known and the return document has been sought recently though the debt was cleared in the year 1998. 

          4) The contention of the complainant is that though the bank issued loan closure certificate it did not return the document and that he spent Rs.10,000/- to take a  lawyer and his clerk in a car to Tirunelveli Court and Tuticorin Court and though the bank promised to return the document within six months it was not done so.  Therefore the bank is liable to pay compensation besides the direction to the bank to return the document.  It is the duty of the bank to return the document of the borrower on discharge of loan particularly immediately after issuing certificate of closure of the loan but the bank failed to do it and it is contended by the bank that the bankers lawyer is no more due to which the bundle could not be traced and availability of the document would be known after tracing the bundle.  This Forum find no force in the argument of the bank.  The complainant want original title deed to dispose of the property and to discharge the family debts from the sale proceeds. The non returning of the title deed of the complainant is deficiency in service.  The bank has to approach the concern court to trace the bundle and to return the document. 

          5) In view of the above discussions it is decided that the complainant is entitled to get the document from the bank and for compensation for hardship and difficulty suffered by the complainant due to the fault of the opposite party bank and this Forum decides to grant compensation of Rs.5,000/- and the points are answered accordingly.

          6) In the result the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party bank to return the original title deed to the complainant or in case the case records along with documents were destroyed the bank shall obtain destruction report from the Court and give it to the complainant and to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- within three months failing which the amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of default till realization.  The complainant is at liberty to take recourse section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The opposite party bank is directed to pay cost of Rs.1000/- to the complainant.

         Dictated to the Assistant taken and typed by him and corrected by me and pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 3^rd day of February 2015.

 

Member II.                                   Member I.                                    President.

Annexure

I) List of documents marked for the complainant.

1. Ex.A1/12-7-200         0: Certificate issued by the opposite party

2. Ex.A2/23-1-12 : Advocate notice sent to the opposite party

3. Ex.A3/23-1-12 : Postal receipt

4. Ex.A4/              : Postal acknowledgement card

II) List of documents marked for the opposite party: Nil.      

                                                      Member II.                                   Member I.                                    President.

11/2/15