Tripura

West Tripura

CC/33/2017

Sri Samar Kr. Sarkar. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chief Manager, State Bank of India. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.S.Chakraborty, Miss.S.Chakraborty.

12 Oct 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

CASE NO:  CC-  33  of   2017

Sri Samar Kr. Sarkar,
S/O- Late Brajendra Chandra Sarkar,
Milan Chakra, P.S. & P.O.- Arundhutinagar,
West Tripura.                .....….…...Complainant.

        VERSUS          

      1. The Chief Manager,
State Bank of India,
RASSMECCC SARC Office,
4, Mantribari Road, 
Agartala, West Tripura.

      2. The Assistant General Manager,
State Bank of India,
RASMECCC SARC Office,
4, Mantribari Road, 
Agartala, West Tripura.

      3. The Branch Manager,
State Bank of India,
Kunjaban Branch,
P.O. Kunjaban, Agartala,
West Tripura.                ............Opposite Parties.
     

 __________PRESENT__________
 SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
 DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C  O  U  N  S  E  L

For the Complainant        : Sri Santosh Chakraborty,
                      Miss Sananda Chakraborty,
                       Advocates.

For the Opposite Parties        : Sri Prabir Saha,
                      Sri Diptanu Debnath, 
                      Advocates.

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON: 12.10.2017.

J U D G M E N T
         This case arises on the petition filed by one Samir Sarkar U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. Petitioner's case in short is that he maintained the savings account in the Kunjaban Branch of SBI and had taken overdraft loan amount from that branch. He also mortgaged his landed property and  submitted original Title Deed in the year 1989 for taking the loan from Bank. He could not pay the amount and the Bank filed case against him. Case was Decreed and finally Execution Case was filed against him. On 06.12.14 in National Lok Adalat case was settled. The loan amount was realized by the bank within 6 months i.e., by 2015. 'NO DUES CERTIFICATE' was issued. Then the petitioner claimed the 2 title Deeds deposited by him to bank. But those were not delivered. He filed application in the year 2016. But the O.P. bank failed to deliver the Title Deeds. For this deficiency of service he suffered and prayed for compensation.

2.        O.P. State Bank of India appeared, filed written statement denying the claim. It is stated that details of documents as well as loan account was not properly informed by the petitioner. For the latches of the petitioner the Title Deeds could not be supplied. Petitioner therefore, is not entitled to get anything.

3.        On the basis of contention raised by the parties following points cropped up for determination:
        (I) Whether the O.P. bank failed to hand over the Title Deeds after realization of the loan and therefore acted improperly?
        (II) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation for the deficiency of service by the bank?

4.        Petitioner produced the No Dues Certificate, copy of Pass Book, letter written to Chief Manager on 06.04.16 and reply, copy of Advocate's Notice. Petitioner also produced the statement of affidavit of Samar Kr. Sarkar.

5.        O.P. bank on the other hand produced the copy of Advocate's notice, Search Application in the court, original Title Deeds along with demand notice, Counter part of voucher & Redg. copy of letter and statement on affidavit of Samiran Saha. 

6.        On the basis of all these evidence we shall now determine the above points.

            Findings and decision:
7.        O.P.W.1, Samiran Saha stated that they have searched the loan account but no loan account was found in the name of Samar Kr. Sarkar. Account number was not informed. It was stated that there was no such loan account in the name of the complainant. But in the written statement it is admitted that loan was taken by the petitioner from the Kunjaban Branch of SBI. The fact of taking loan is also admitted and deposit of title deed is also admitted. From the No Dues Certificate it is clear that loan against Account No- 10221257076 was cleared by the petitioner on payment of Rs.64,558/-. The certificate was issued on 04.09.15. After issuance of the certificate the O.P. did not take any step for delivery or return of the 2 Title Deeds taken at the time of disbursement of the loan. Petitioner wrote letter to Assistant General Manager on 08.07.16 for return of Title Deeds. But it was not returned. So advocate's notice was given on 18.11.16. Again he requested the Bank authority to return the Title deeds. But it was not returned. After filing of the case title deeds were taken from the court and produced before this Forum. Now this 2 Title Deeds is lying with this case. 

8.        It is admitted position that SBI authority filed mortgage case against the petitioner in the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No. 1. Bank also filed Execution case and those 2 Title Deeds were produced before the court by Bank. Finally the case was decided in the Lok Adalat in the year 2014. Thereafter bank should have taken step for giving back the Title Deeds of the petitioner and return the same. After satisfaction of the decree and realization of the loan it was the duty of the Bank to return the deeds to the petitioner. But the bank authority failed to do so on the plea that account number was not known to them. This is lame excuse. Failure to deliver the deeds in time is deficiency of service by the bank. But how the petitioner suffered by non delivery of the Title deeds not clarified by the petitioner.

9.        Petitioner claimed compensation Rs.20,000/- and also Rs.100/- per day. But how this damage is assessed not cleared at all. It is the duty of the petitioner to explain how he suffered for the non delivery of the 2 Title Deeds lying in the court custody. After filing of the case Bank took initiative for return of the documents of the 2 title deeds. It was returned and submitted before the Forum. But there was inordinate delay and such delay is deficiency of service by the bank. Petitioner is entitled to get compensation Rs.5,000/- for such deficiency of service by the bank, Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost. Petitioner is also entitled to get back the 2 title deeds which are already furnished. Both the points are decided accordingly. 

10.        We therefore, direct the O.P. State Bank of India to pay Rs.7,000/- to the petitioner as compensation and litigation cost. Title deeds submitted before this Forum is to be delivered to the petitioner. 
         

Announced.

 

 

 

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

MT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA    SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.