FINAL ORDER
The brief facts of the case as enumerated in the Complaint petition is that the Complainant is a retired employee of the O.P. Bank and during his service life he applied for House Building Loan and the O.P. No. 1 after observing all the necessary formalities sanctioned the House Building Loan to the tune of Rs.56,000/- and the Complainant used to repay the loan from his monthly salary regularly in the credit of HBL account maintained in that Branch. The Complainant retired on 31.08.2013 when he was posted at Alipurduar Branch of the Uttar Banga Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Cooch Behar and during the tenure of his service life he took several House Building loan sanctioned by the O.P. No. 1 on different dates and the entire loan amount have been deducted from his salary and credited to relevant HBL A/C regularly and there is no dues in connection with the said loans and the outstanding balance stood NIL w.e.f. 28.03.2013. As per General Rule of the Bank as and when the loanee is transferred from one Branch to another Branch, the H.B. loan account (s) is/are also transferred in a separate account. The outstanding balance of the last HBL A/C bearing No. 4000581510000495 maintained with Alipurduar Branch had been closed by payment of Rs. 7,058/- by the petitioner on 28.03.2013. For getting the HBL loan the Complainant had to deposit the original Title Deed, Searching Report, Rent receipt and some other documents as per direction of the O.P. No. 1 and those documents are still lying in the custody of the O.P. No. 1 but even after closure of loan account the O.P. No. 1 did not return the original Title Deed to the Complainant. The Complainant made several contact to the O.P. No. 2 personally or through letter for getting back of his Title Deed but all efforts were in vain. Finding no other alternative the Complainant issued Legal Notice but to no good. After that the Complainant knocked the door of the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practice, for reconciliation the dispute but the tripartite meeting dated 19.12.2013 has failed. Hence alleging deficiency in service the Complainant filed the present complaint before this Forum for getting the documents from the Opposite parties along with Rs. 2 Lac for Unfair Trade Practice, Rs. 1 Lac for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 30,000 for litigation Cost.
In this case the opposite parties appeared through an agent but the Ld. Agent has failed to file Written Version even after getting ample opportunities. Thus, the case proceeded with Ex-parte against the all O.Ps. The Complainant filed the case against three Opposite parties but on scrutiny it appears that The General Manager,UBKGB, Head Office at Sunity Road has no nexus with the allegation made by the Complainant and not the necessary party. Thus, this Forum vides its order No. 3 Dated 20.05. 2014 decide to issue notices upon the O.P. No. 1&3 treating them as O.P.No.1&2 respectively.
The Complainant has filed Evidence on affidavit. Peruse the same but no new points came out for discussion.
In the light of the facts and circumstances the following moot points came out for consideration to reach a just decision.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant is a Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Has the Opposite Party any deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASON
We have gone through the record very carefully, peruse the entire documents in the record, Evidence on affidavit of the Complainant and also heard the Ex-parte argument in full.
Point No. 1.
It has been mandated by the provision of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 that the person has filed a complaint before the Forum for the purpose of any relief, has to prove himself a consumer. In the instant case, the complainant admittedly, for the purpose of getting service in connection of his HBL Account No.4000581510000495 maintained with the Opposite Party Bank at Alipurduar Branch. The dispute of the case in connection with the loan had taken by the Complainant during his service period from the O.P. No. 1. It is crystal clear that the complainant availed of and bought the service of the opposite parties as a valuable customer of the O.P. Bank. It can well be derive that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite party as per the spirit of the provision of section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Point No. 2.
In the case in hand the O.P bank is situated in this District and the Complaint value of Rs.3,30,000/- i.e. within the limit of Rs. 20,00000/-. Thus, this Forum has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case.
Point No.3 & 4.
The above two points are taken up together for convenience of discussion.
It is the case of the Complainant that during his service period he took several loans from the O.P. No. 1 against submission of his original Land Title Deed but even after repayment of entire loan with interest the O.P. Bank did not return his original documents. It is the further case of the Complainant is that he made several request to return back the original documents, personally/through advocate letter but all are in vain. Evidently, the Complainant took House Building Loan against his land Title Deed from the O.P. No. 1. The original documents were deposited to the O.P. No. 2, The Branch Manager, UBKG Bank, Cooch Behar as per his demand letter dated 30.09.1988. It appears from Annexure D, E and F that the Complainant made request to the O.P. No. 2 by letter dated 26.09.2013, 22.08.2013 and 10.02.2014. Annexure “C”, HBL (GAY) Loan Ledger Statement reveals that the HBL Account No.4000581510000495 of the borrower, Ajad Ali Mandal has been closed on 28.03.2013. It also appears from Annexure “G” that the Branch Manager, Alipurduar Branch of UBKG by a letter dated 30. 03. 2013 informed the Branch Manager, Cooch Behar Branch of UBKG i. e. O.P. No. 2 that the entire loan of Md. Ajad Ali Mandal has been liquidated in full on 28.03.2013 and there are no dues and pursue to release all Land Deeds and other documents to the Complainant. Surprisingly, even after receipt of the said letter the O.P. no. 2 did not release the original Land Deed, the reason best known to the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties ought to have released the Title Deed at the time of closure of the loan. It is pertinent to mention that the O.P. No. 1 being the principal of the UBKG Bank have to initiate to return back the original documents which is lying with the O.P. No. 2, The Branch Manager, Cooch Behar Branch of UBKG to the Complainant rather they kept mum themselves for which deficiency in service of the Opposite Parties cannot be ruled out.
The ld. Agent for the complainant vehemently argued that by not getting the said documents even after repayment of total loan with interest the Complainant suffered a lot of anxiety and agony. We have no hesitation to accept the case of the Complainant that non availability of the original Title Deed has caused severe mental pain and agony of the Complainant.
It is also pertinent point to mention that in this case the Opposite Parties though appeared but did not contest the case by filing W/V or appeared before this Forum that seems that the opposite parties have nothing to challenge the allegation of the Complainant.
In the light of the foregoing discussion and considering all the aspects we are of the opinion that a total compensation of Rs. 10,000/- will be the reasonable to meet the ends of justice.
Thus, the Complaint succeeds by unchallenged testimonies.
ORDER
Hence it is ordered,
That the Complaint be and the same is allowed in Ex-parte but in part with litigation cost of Rs. 5000/-. The Opposite Party No. 1&2 are hereby directed to pay the Complainant Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental pain and agony with unnecessary harassment. The Opposite Party No. 2 The Branch Manager, UBKG Bank, Cooch Behar Branch, Pancharangee More, is further directed to return the original Land Deed with other documents to the Complainant within 45 days in default O.P. No. 2 have to pay Rs. 50/- for each day’s delay. The Opposite Parties are directed to pay the ordered amount jointly and/or severally to the Complainant within 45 days from the date of this order in default the Opposite Parties shall have to pay Rs. 50/- each for each day’s delay and the total amount to be accumulated shall be deposited in the State Consumer Welfare Fund.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the concerned party by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action as per rule.
Dictated and corrected by me.
Member President
District Consumer Disputes District Consume Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar
