DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PALAKKAD
Dated this the 23rd day of December 2021
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V, President
: Smt.Vidya.A, Member
Date of filing: 26.11.2019.
CC/268/2019
K.Dakshayani
W/o.Late.Sankarankutty - Complainant
Sayi Nivas
Kallekulangara Post
Palakkad
(By Adv.K.Rajan)
Vs
The Branch Manager
State Bank of India
Surya complex - Opposite Party
T.B.Road
Palakkad
(Ex-parte)
O R D E R
By Smt Vidya A, Member
Brief facts of the complaint
1. The complainant in this case is a Senior Citizen retired from Kerala State Electricity Board. The complainant took a loan from the opposite party Bank with No MTL 482002. The loan was closed in the year 2008. Title deed 829/1977 of Palakkad Sub Registrar Office was deposited with the Bank as security for the loan. The opposite party did not return the original title deed and some other documents even after closing the loan. The complainant approached the Bank several times in connection with this. But they did not attend her grievance nor return the document.
The complainant sent a Lawyer Notice to the opposite party on 27/08/2019 demanding the original documents. But the Bank did not send any reply nor act upon it. The deficiency in service on the part of the Bank had caused mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. So this complaint is filed for directing the opposite party to return the original documents and to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/-.
2. Complaint admitted and notice was issued to the opposite party. Even after the receipt of notice, the opposite party did not appear before the Commission. So they were set ex-parte.
3. Complainant’s son filed chief affidavit and documents along with Power of Attorney. He filed affidavit stating that Complainant was laid up due to stroke and she is not in a position, to personally attend the case and authorized him to conduct the case. The Power of Attorney was accepted and Exhibit A1 to A4 marked from complainant’s side and evidence was closed.
4. Points for consideration
(1).Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?
(2).Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
(3).What is the relief as to cost and compensation?
Point No.1
5. Loan was closed during the year 2008. Even after repeated requests, the Bank failed to hand over the document deposited with them. The Bank had not repudiated the demand for the document deposited nor handed over the same to the complainant. The demand was always kept open. Since it was kept open, and never closed, a finality can never be attributed to the conduct of the opposite party, there by giving rise to continuing cause of action.
Hence we hold that the matter is not barred by limitation.
Points No. 2 & 3
6. Complainant’s contention is that she took a loan from the opposite party Bank. She deposited the title deed bearing No.829/1977 of Palakkad S.R.O with the Bank as the security for the loan. Even though the loan was closed in the year 2008, the opposite party Bank did not return the original title deed.
7. The complainant sent a letter dated 10/12/2013 to the opposite party Bank requesting to return the documents which is marked as Exhibit A1. As per the complaint, even after her repeated requests in person and through notice, the opposite party Bank did not care to the solve the issue.
8. The complainant sent a Lawyer Notice to the opposite party on 27/08/2019, copy of which is produced and marked as Exhibit A2. The Acknowledgement Card and postal receipt are also produced and marked as Exhibit A3 and A4. According to the complainant, the opposite party did not give any reply to the Lawyers Notice nor they return the documents.
9. So it is a clear deficiency in service on the part of opposite party Bank. Non returning the original documents given as the security for the loan even after the closure it is an unfair Trade Practice too. The complainant who is 80 years old was unnecessarily dragged before the Commission.
10. Since the opposite party remained ex-parte, the evidence adduced by the complainant stands unchallenged.
11. The complainant had undergone mental agony because of the conduct of the opposite party. The opposite party is bound to compensate the complainant for that.
12. In the result the complaint is allowed. We direct the opposite party.
(1).To return the original title deed (829/1977 of Palakkad SRO)
to the complainant which is deposited with the opposite party as
security for the loan.
(2).To pay a compensation of Rs.2,000/- for their deficiency in
service and Rs.3,000/- for the mental agony and financial loss
suffered by the complainant.
Order shall be complied within a period of 45 days from receipt
of a copy of this notice.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 23rd day of December
2021.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President.
Sd/-
Vidya.A Member
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext. A1– Notice send by the complainant to the opposite party dated
10/12/2013.
Ext.A2 - Lawyer notice issued by the counsel for the complainant to the
opposite party dated 27/08/2019.
Ext.A3 – Acknowledgement card showing receipt of notice dated 28/08/19.
Ext.A4 - Postal receipt dated 27/08/2019.
Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties
NIL
Cost: NIL
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Resolution 20(5) of the Consumer protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 falling which they will be weeded out.
