CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 29th day of August 2014
PRESENT : SMT. SEENA. H, PRESIDENT
: SMT. SHINY. P.R, MEMBER
: SMT. SUMA. K.P, MEMBER Date of filing : 14/03/2014
CC /38 /2014
Subramanian.P,
S/o.Ponnuchamy,
Ganeshpuram, Pampampallam, : Complainant
Palakkad.
(Adv.Viju. K.Raphel)
Vs
Canara Bank,
(Represented by its Branch Manager),
11/177, Dhamu Memmorial Building, : Opposite party
Opp. ITI Ltd, Kanjikode, Palakkad.
(Adv.G.Ananthakrishnan)
O R D E R
By Smt. Suma. K.P, Member,
The case of the complainant is that he had approached the opposite party bank for a loan under product code/name ‘898 General Credit Card Scheme Revolving’ for an amount of Rs.25,000/-. After verifying the credentials for the complainant the opposite party had sanctioned a loan of Rs.25,000/- under the scheme to the complainant. As a security to the above said loan, the opposite party bank had demanded the complainant to deposit the title deed of his house and compound. The complainant is the owner of house and compound having an extent of 23/4 cents. As demanded by the opposite party bank the complainant herein had deposited the title deed of his house and compound having registration number 2693/1982 of SRO, Palakkad .
Thereafter the opposite party had sanctioned another loan in the name of complainant’s daughter Sri.Krishnaleela for an amount of Rs.25,000/- . Both complainant’s wife Sri. Selvi Amaravathi.S and complainant’s son Sri.Balamurugan.S had also applied for the same amount under the same scheme and the above property was shown as security against the loan disbursed to all the above mentioned loans. The complainant had repaid all the four loans along with the interest and other charges as demanded by the opposite party bank. Thereafter the complainant approached the opposite party bank in the month of December, 2012 for release of his original title deed from the Bank. The Branch Manager of the opposite party promised to release the original title deed to the complainant within a month and ask the complainant to contact after a month. The complainant approached the opposite party in the month of January 2013. Again the bank manager requested time. This process continued on and the branch manager of the opposite party stated one or the other reason for non release of the original title deed of the complainant. The complainant was running from pillar to post to get his original title deed back. Later the complainant issued a letter to the Branch Manager of the opposite party bank, demanding the immediate release of his original title deed which was deposited with opposite party bank. The opposite party neither replied nor has handed over the original title deed of the complainant till date. This is a deficiency of service from the part of opposite party bank. The opposite party’s duty bound to return the original title deed which was collected as security, at the time of allocation of loan to the complainant after closure of the loan account. Hence this complaint is filed for an order directing the opposite party to return the original title deed of the complainant having registration number 2396/1982 of SRO, Palakkad and also to pay the complainant Rs.80,000/- as compensation for mental agony and pain suffered by him.
Opposite party entered appearance and filed version stating the following contentions: The opposite party contented that the complainant and his wife and children while availing the loan had executed and delivered necessary documents. The loan granted was an unsecured loan. No mortgage was created by the complainant or any title deed was given by the complainant while availing the loans. The averment that as demanded by the opposite party bank the complainant herein deposited the title deeds of his house and compound is not correct and was denied by the opposite party. As the complainant has not deposited title deeds to secure the loans the opposite party is not in a position to return the alleged documents. The dispute is not a consumer dispute since the relationship between the complainant and opposite party is that of a debtor and creditor.
Complainant filed chief affidavit along with documents. Ext.A1-Ext.A6 was marked from the side of the complainant. Opposite party also filed chief affidavits and documents. Ext.B1-Ext.B13 was marked.
The issues that arises for consideration.
- Where there was any deficiency of service from the part of the opposite party?
- If so, what are the reliefs and cost?
Issue No.1: Heard the parties. We are also perused documents produced from both sides. It is admitted that complainant, his wife, his daughter and son had availed loans from the opposite party bank. Copies of the loan application, request for overdraft and pro-notes signed by all of them was produced before the forum. Complainant has also produced Ext.A1 to Ext.A6 from which it is obvious that he had repaid all the loans he had also issued a letter to the opposite party dated 24/12/2013 demanding return of his original title deed. The complainant had produced the copy of the original title deed attested by the opposite party bank to be produced before KSFE, Stadium Stand, Palakkad which was marked as Ext.A6 which shows that the original title deed is in the custody of opposite party bank. The opposite party has not stated nor pleaded that besides these personal loans there were other mortgaged loans sanctioned to the complainant. The opposite party had failed to explain under what circumstances the attestation happened to be in the Ext.A6. They merely denied the attestation stating that document bears no signature nor date. But they do not content for a position that the original seal was forged. The opposite party had also not taken any steps to call for the original of Ext.A6 from the custody of KSFE Stadium Branch, Palakkad so as to prove the veracity of the document. There is no evidence on record to contradict the genuineness of Ext.A6 document. In the above circumstances we are of the view that the complainant had proved his contentions in the complaint.Hence we are of the view that opposite party had retained the original document of the complainant in their custody. In the above circumstances complaint is allowed.
Hence we direct the opposite party to return the original title deed of the Complainant having registration No.2693/1982 of SRO, Palakkad which is deposited along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order. In case of non return of documents the complainant is also entitled to realize an additional amount of Rs.10,000/- from the opposite party. The parties shall bear their respective costs. The aforesaid order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest for the whole amount from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 29th day of August 2014
Sd/-
Smt. Seena. H
President
Sd/-
Smt. Shiny. P.R
Member
Sd/-
Smt. Suma. K.P
Member
A P P E N D I X
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 - Ledger print out of the loan account maintained by the opposite party in the name
of complainant dt.18/01/2014.
Ext.A2 - Ledger print out of the loan account maintained by the opposite party in the name
of complainant’s daughter Sri.Krishnaleela dt.18/01/2014.
Ext.A3 - Ledger print out of the loan account maintained by the opposite party in the name
of complainant’s wife Sri.Selvi Amaravathi.S dt.18/01/2014.
Ext.A4 - Ledger print out of the loan account maintained by the opposite party in the name
of complainant’s son Sri.Balamurughan.S dt.18/01/2014.
Ext.A5 - Copy of letter issued by the complainant to the opposite party bank dtd.24/12/2013.
Ext.A6 - Copy of attested copy of the title deed of the complainant produced before the KSFE, Stadium Stand Branch, Palakkad dt.30/04/1982.
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties
Ext.B1 - Loan application of complainant dtd.15/12/2011(Photocopy).
Ext.B2 - Request for overdraft facilities dt.15/12/2011.
Ext.B3 - Pronote for Rs.25,000/- dt.15/12/2011.
Ext.B4 - Loan application of Sri.Krishnaleela dtd.08/12/2012.
Ext.B5 - Request for overdraft facilities dt.08/12/2012.
Ext.B6 - Pronote for Rs.25,000/- dt.08/12/2012.
Ext.B7 - Loan application of Sri.Selvi Amaravathi dtd.08/12/2012.
Ext.B8 - Request for overdraft facilities dt.08/12/2012.
Ext.B9 - Pronote for Rs.25,000/- dt.08/12/2012.
Ext.B10 - Loan application of Balamurugan dtd.10/02/2012.
Ext.B11 - Request for overdraft facilities dt.10/02/2012.
Ext.B12 - Pronote for Rs.25,000/- dt.10/02/2012.
Ext.B13- Letter issued by Canara Bank dtd.06/01/2014
Witness marked on the side of complainant
Nil
Witness examined on the side of opposite parties
Nil
Cost Allowed
No cost allowed.
