West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/68/2013

Sri Paresh Nath Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, UCO Bank - Opp.Party(s)

10 Jun 2014

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.68/2013                                                         Date of disposal: 10/06/2014                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. Sujit Kumar Das.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

    For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. A. K. Dutta, Advocate.

    For the Defendant/O.P.S.                           : Mr. K. K. Roy, Advocate.                                   

          

                      Sri Paresh Nath Pal, S/o Late Kokil Pal of Vill. Konnager, P.O.& P.S. Ghatal, Dist-

                      Paschim Medinipur…………..Complainant

                                                           Vs.

1. The Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Ghatal Branch, P.O. & P.S. Ghatal, Dist- Paschim   

    Medinipur, Pin-721212.

2. The Deputy Zonal Manager, Head-II,  Zonal Office Howrah, Madhusudhan

            Appartment, P-18, Dobsone Lane, Howrah...……………Ops.

         

                         The case of the complainant Sri, Paresh Nath Pal, in short, is that a house building loan was availed of by the complainant on deposit of original documents, namely, Regd. Sale Deed being its no.2527 of 2001, conversion and Mutation Certificates, approved plan & estimate in the custody of the Op-UCO Bank and the said loan has already been repaid on 31/12/2011.  Now specific complaint is raised before us that even upon repayment of the said loan the documents in original are not handed to the complainant despite repeated request.  Thus, the complainant made allegation of deficiency in service on the part of the Op and prayed for suitable direction for immediate supply of the documents, alternatively a sum of 25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) only  as damaged and costs etc.

            The Op-UCO Bank contested the case challenging that the case is not maintainable for want of jurisdiction and cause of action.  The documents were not found even after thorough search in the office by previous Manager Benay Bhushan Ari and also thereafter present Manager Sri

Contd……………….P/2

 

 

- ( 2 ) -

Sudhanshu Sekhar Mondal.  In this connection, it is stated in the written objection that those documents are misplaced with other loan cases.  In that case, the complainant may get certified copies from the office of the Sub-Registrar. So there is no case of deficiency of service and as such the case should be dismissed.

          Upon the case of both parties the following issues are framed.

Issues:

1. Whether the case is maintainable in its present from?
2. Whether the complainant has any cause of action for presentation of this petition of complaint?
3. Is there any jurisdiction of this Forum to entertain this case?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled for getting relief as prayed for?

 

Decision with reasons

Issue Nos.1 to 4:

              All the issues are taken up together for discussion as those are interlinked each other for the purpose of arriving at a correct decision in the dispute.

              Ld. Advocate for the complainant made his argument that the complainant, for the purpose of getting loan, had submitted relevant documents before the Op-Bank where those documents were lying in their custody during the period till repayment of the loan.  The loan amount in course of time was repaid and there are no dues against the complainant.  Even so the Op has not made delivery of those documents from their custody. The Forum, during hearing of this case, has given reasonable opportunity to the Op for finding out the documents in question.  Even so, the Op has ultimately declared that the documents are not traceable.  If that be so, the Op, as argued by the Ld. Advocate, is legally bound to give return of the documents, otherwise to pay damage thereof.

              Ld. Advocate for the Op-Bank is found to have openly declared that they have made an extensive search in the entire office for several times.  But it is unfortunate for the Op to come to the conclusion that the documents are not found available.  So, there is no deficiency of service as raised by the complainant.  Thus the case should be dismissed.

              We have carefully considered the case as a whole.  It is admitted that the documents were deposited in the custody of the Op-Bank for loan and after the repayment of the loan, admittedly the Op failed to give return of those documents in favour of the complainant. Under the facts and circumstances it is incumbent upon the Op-Bank to take suitable steps compensating the damage sustained by the complainant.

Conted………..P/3 

 

 

- ( 3 ) –

                In view of the above, it is held and decided that the complainant should get an order of award towards the damage as claimed by the complainant.  Thus, all the issues are disposed of in favour of the complainant.

                Now, in question of amount of compensation, we are to say that there is no substitute for the original documents in terms of its actual effect to the future facilities and advantages towards utilisation of the property in question.  So damage in the form of money will not serve the actual purpose coming out of the effective result of the originality from the documents.  Under such condition we do not find any suitable alternative but to allow the prayer of the complainant.

                In this connection, certified copy of this order may serve a good safeguard to the inconveniences and disadvantages relating to the use of the secondary documents.

       

               Hence,

                           It is Ordered,    

                                                    that the case be and the same is allowed  on contest  without cost.

      The complainant do get an award of 25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) only as damage and litigation cost against the Op.

      The complainant is hereby directed to make payment of 25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) only in favour of the complainant within 30 days or 9 percent interest p.a. till the date of payment of the said sum w.e.f. this date of order.

     

Dic. & Corrected by me

              

         President                                Member              Member                                  President

                                                                                                                              District Forum

                                                                                                                         Paschim Medinipur.