Debasis Bhattacharya:- PRESIDING MEMBER
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the service extended primarily by State Bank of India Chinsurah Branch and the concerned Zonal Manager of the same Bank in the matter of turning back of the original deed of the property which was mortgaged against a CC loan taken by the Complainant, even after recovery of the said loan, the instant case has been filed by the complainant, u/s 35 (1) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
The fact of the case is as follows.
The first two petitioners who were partners of one M/S Rajendra Lamp Works, reportedly the source of their livelihood, took a cash credit loan from the OP bank in the year 1980 and the third petitioner was the guarantor of the said loan.
Reportedly the loan was sanctioned in the year 1980 to the extent of Rs.2,45,000/- against mortgage of the petitioners’ dwelling house and accordingly the OP Bank took the related deed no.4007 Dtd.22.06.1980 to their custody as collateral security.
Now reportedly, in the year 2018 the outstanding dues against the said loan stood at Rs.4,00,000/-
The petitioner claims to have paid off the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- on 01.11.2018 and accordingly the bank authority issued ‘no dues certificate’ in favour of the petitioner.
Thereafter the Complainant approached to the OP Bank to return the original deed and ‘other relevant documents’ which were kept with the custody of the bank authority at the time of sanction of the loan.
But allegedly in spite of giving several assurances the OP Bank ultimately did not turn back the original documents.
A number of persuasions through written applications, e-mails, legal notices went in vain and on the other side the OP Bank preferred to keep mum over the issue.
The Complainant claims himself to be a consumer and the OP Bank, a service provider.
It is further stated by the Complainant that the cause of action first arose on 01.11.2018 when the outstanding dues were paid off, again on 10.11 2020 when the legal notice was sent and there was continued cause of action.
Considering the Bank’s reluctance to turn back the original documents as deficiency of service and unfair trade practice the instant complaint petition is filed with the prayers to impose direction on the OP Bank to turn back the original deed, to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-for causing mental agony, to pay a sum of Rs.45,00,000/- for ‘loss of income’ and to pay further Rs.50,000/- as ‘compensation as well as litigation cost’.
The Complainant along with their petition ahs submitted copies of no due certificate issued by the Bank, the pay in slip through which the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- was paid, application made to the OP Bank on 16.03.2020 for return of the deed, e-mail dtd.21.10.2020 sent to the OP Bank on the issue from one some Gulti Chatterjee and the legal notice sent to the Bank.
The OP Bank contested the case by submitting written version, evidence on affidavit and brief notes of argument in which all the charges leveled against them have been denied.
In the notarized written version and evidence on affidavit the OP bank has sworn that they handed over the original title deed No.4007 to the petitioners on 01.11.2018 and the petitioners received the said original title deed on 01.11.2018 by putting their signatures on the Bank document (C.O.S. 49 as per RBI guideline).
The OP Bank further points out inter alia in their BNA that,
- The Complainant was irregular in the repayment of their loan causing overdue of Rs.4,70,000/-, corresponding interest and charges
- The loan was settled under compromise on 01.11.2018
- The Complainant suppressed the fact that the said loan account became NPA.
The OP bank has annexed the said receipt in the stipulated proforma.
On the other hand the Complainant in their evidence on affidavit has denied the fact that they received the original title deed putting their signatures on the Bank document. The Complainant even went to the extent of claiming that the receipt produced by the OP Bank is a ‘manufactured’ one.
Issues for consideration
- Whether the complainant is the consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act.
- Whether this Commission has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the instant petition.
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief.
Decision with reason
Issue No. 1
In view of the above discussion and on examination of available records it transpires that the complainant is a consumer as far as the provisions laid down under Section 2(7)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 are concerned.
Issue No. 2
Both the complainant and the opposite parties are resident/having their office address within the district of Hooghly.
The claim preferred by the complainant does not exceed the limit of Rs.50,00,000/-
Thus this Commission has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to proceed in the instant case.
Issue No. 3 and 4
Materials on records are perused. The issues being mutually inter-related, are taken together for convenient disposal.
Discussion on the issues like granting of the loan, repayment of the loan, the Complainant’s being defaulter in the matter of repayment of the loan, declaration of the loan account as NPA etc. will be redundant as, eventually the matter was settled and no dues certificate was issued by the Bank authority.
Now the only dispute revolves around the issue whether the original title deed was turned back by the Bank authority and whether the same was received by the Complainant.
The undeniable reality is this, that the OP Bank has produced photocopy of the receipt to substantiate that the original title deed was returned back to the Complainant and the same was accordingly received.
On the contrary the Complainants have alleged that the receipt claimed by the OP bank is a ‘manufactured’ one.
This is as good as charging the largest public sector Bank of the country with fabrication, forgery, manipulation and falsification, the trial of which is supposed to be made in a different judicial forum.
Besides, in an appeal challenging the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissing the appeal against Tamilnadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) holding the Bank liable for deficiency of service under section 2(1)(g) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, the Division Bench of Ajoy Rastogi and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ. held that complaints involving highly disputed questions of facts could not be decided by NCDRC or SCDRC respecting the summary nature of proceedings under the 1986 Act.
Thus on meticulous scrutiny of all the aspects of the case, this Commission is of the view that deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the bank cannot be established in unequivocal terms and the complaint highlighted in the petition involves highly disputed question of facts which is not supposed to be resolved in this forum
Hence it is
ORDERED
That the complainant case no.01 of 2021 be and the same is dismissed on contest. No order as to costs.
However there is no order is passed as to costs.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.
The final order will be available in the website www.confonet.nic.in
