BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 119/2007 Filed on 11.05.2007

Dated : 30.05.2009

Complainant:

S. Jayakumar, S/o Sundaresan, T.C 30/1560, Ottali House, Chayakkudi Lane, Pettah, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. K. Hareendran Nair)

Opposite party:

The Branch Manager, South Indian Bank, Chakka Branch, Chakka, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. S. Williams)

This O.P having been heard on 27.04.2009, the Forum on 30.05.2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER

Facts of the case are as follows: The complainant had availed a loan from the opposite party, the South Indian Bank, Chakkai branch 15 years ago for Rs. 5,000/- by depositing the original title deed No. 1540/1983. As per the complainant the value of property is more than 20 lakhs. The complainant had closed the loan on 15.12.2006 and he demanded the opposite party to return the original documents which were pledged by him. But the opposite party never turned up to return the documents. On 24.04.2007 the complainant sent a lawyer's notice to the opposite party to return the original document. Even though the opposite party accepted the notice, they did not send any reply or return the document. The act of the opposite party caused irreparable loss and mental agony to him. Hence this complaint.

The opposite party in this case filed their version. The opposite party admitted the transaction. The opposite party stated that the amount due to the bank on 05.12.2006 was Rs. 24,219/- and the same was settled for Rs. 10,000/- on 15.12.2006 during the R.R. Mela held at village office and they lost Rs. 14,219/- while settling the matter. The opposite party further submitted that the complainant was a gross defaulter and he settled the matter after more than 18 years from the date of taking loan and after 13 years from the date of suit filed by the opposite party against the complainant for realization of the loan amount. In the meanwhile all the loan documents were handed over to the advocate of the opposite party for filing suit. The title deed is thereafter misplaced and not found inspite of all earnest efforts from the side of the bank to trace it. They also stated that the main contributing factor for not returning the title deed has been the delay of more than 18 years from the part of the complainant in settling the account. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the part of the opposite party and hence they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

The complainant and opposite party filed proof affidavits and both parties were cross examined. From the side of complainant 4 documents were marked.

Points that would arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service or negligence from the side of opposite party?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs and costs?

Points (i) & (ii):- The complainant in this case produced 4 documents to prove his complaint and the documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P4. Ext. P1 is the copy of advocate notice dated 24.04.2007 issued by the complainant to the opposite party demanding the original documents. Ext. P2 is the postal receipt of lawyers notice. Ext. P3 series are the copy of tax receipt of the mortgage property and the copy of the notice of the R.R proceedings. Ext. P4 is the copy of letter issued by Adv. Simon to the South Indian Bank informing that he has returned the title deed to the bank. In this case the complainant has produced sufficient documents and pleadings to prove his case. The opposite party also admitted that the original title deed has been irrecoverably lost from their custody. The opposite party also admitted that the complainant had closed the loan. They also contended that the reason for the loss of the document was that the complainant has taken more than 18 years to settle the account. That is not a reason. It is the duty of the opposite party to keep the document in safe custody. The opposite party is legally bound to return the documents after closing the loan. In this case the opposite party has not performed his duty promptly. The misplacement of the document is sufficient proof of their negligence and deficiency in their service. Original deed of a property is the most valuable one. Everyone knows the importance of the original documents. Now-a-days it is very essential for availing a loan. It is the common procedure to produce the original document of the property proposed for availing loan. Without the original title deed no bank will issue any loans and also without an original document it is very difficult to transfer the property. Hence the loss of the original title deed No. 1540/1983 has very seriously affected the complainant in many ways. The act of the opposite party had not only caused the complainant to suffer a great deal of mental agony, but also deprived him of his right to use the deed for further transactions. Though the loss cannot be commuted in terms of money, the complainant has to be compensated for the sufferings he had to undergo. Hence the opposite party is liable to compensate his negligent act. Hence the complaint is allowed.

In the result, the opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 15,000/- to the complainant as compensation for his sufferings due to the loss of the original title deed. The opposite party shall also pay Rs. 1,500/- as costs. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of this order. Thereafter the above amounts shall carry 12% annual interest till the date of realization.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 30^th May 2009.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 119/2007

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - S. Jayakumar

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of advocate notice issued by the complainant to the

opposite party dated 24.04.2007.

P2 - Postal receipt of advocate notice.

P3 - Copy of tax receipt of the mortgaged property and copy of

notice of the R.R. Proceedings.

P4 - Copy of letter dated 09.02.2007 issued by C.J. Simon,

advocate to the opposite party.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

DW1 - Mercy Thanikkal

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT