CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
Palakkad, Kerala
Dated this the 15th day of March 2014
CC/126/2013
PRESENT : SMT. SEENA. H, PRESIDENT Date of filing: 05/08/2013
: SMT. SHINY.P.R ,MEMBER
: SMT.SUMA K.P, MEMBER
Mr. Rajagopalan S/o.A.Velayudhan,
Anthiruthi House,
Kadambur (P.O)
Ambalappara ( Via),
Ottapalam Taluk. : Complainant
(By Adv.K.V.Narayanan)
Vs
The Chief Manager,
State Bank of Travancore,
Ottapalam Branch, Narayana Tower,
Ottapalam, Palakkad. : Opposite party
(By Adv. P.P. Gopalakrishnan & Sheji Rajan)
O R D E R
By Smt. Seena.H, President.
The complainant had applied for a loan from the opposite party bank of an amount of Rs. 2,27,000/- as per loan No. MTL 57008304000. The bank has sanctioned the loan and the complainant had created an equitable mortgage of the property and the original title deed No. 787 of 1999 along with other documents were deposited with the bank for the equitable mortgage. The complainant paid the entire loan amount on 26/04/2012 and the liability was cleared. After that when he demanded back the documents deposited with the bank, it was told that the document has to be traced out and asked to come on subsequent date. After that the complainant approached the bank again demanding the document but the bank authorities sent him back on lame excuses. The bank authorities are duty bound to keep the documents in safe custody and has to return the same as and when the mortgage loan is closed. Since the original title deed was not returned the complainant is not in a position to avail any financial assistance from any bank. When the bank authorities failed to return back the document the complainant caused to send a lawyer notice on 31/10/2012. On receiving the notice the opposite party sent a reply notice on 06/11/2012 stating that the document No. 787/1999 was missing from the file. It is also stated that the basic deed and other documents are with them and they are ready to return the same. On receipt of the reply notice the complainant approached the bank authorities and they had returned back the other documents with a certified copy of document No. 787/1999 and a letter stating that the original document is missing. After that the complainant filed a loan application before the Palakkad District Co – Operative Bank with the available document. But the same was rejected on the ground that the original document is not produced. Due to the negligence of the opposite party the petitioner is not in a position to avail loan by mortgaging the properties. Hence this complaint. Complainant prays for an order directing the opposite party to return the document or pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-
Opposite party admits that the complainant had availed a loan from the opposite party and the said account was closed. The title deed in the name of the complainant was misplaced and the same could not be traced out inspite of earnest efforts from the opposite party. The opposite party had informed the same without any delay. According to opposite party, complainant has no difficulty at all for availing a loan since the opposite party has given a certificate to the complainant stating that the document was misplaced by the opposite party. Hence the allegation that the complainant cannot avail loan from the bank because of non availability of the title deed is factually incorrect. The opposite party had offered loan to the complainant and the same was refused by the complainant. The complainant has no intention to avail loan from any bank and such allegations are made for the specific purpose of the complainant to make it appear that there is deficiency of service. Opposite party prays for dismissal of the complaint.
The evidence adduced by the parties consists of their respective chief affidavits. Ext. A1 to A5 marked on the side of the complainant. Complainant and opposite party cross examined as PW1 and DW1.
Issues for consideration:-
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
- If so, what is the relief and cost entitled to the complainant?
ISSUE 1 & 2
Heard both parties and has gone through the entire evidence on record. It is an admitted case that the complainant has availed loan from opposite party on deposit of title deeds. It is also an admitted fact that the loan was closed and the title deeds were missing from the opposite party. The said fact is also evident from Ext. A2 reply notice. Bank is duty bound to keep the documents submitted by the customers in safe custody. The say of the opposite party that they have substituted the document with certified copy and they are ready to disburse loan to the complainant without the original etc. will not settle the grievance of the complainant. Opposite party being a bank is fully aware of the pathetic situation a customer has to face while approaching a bank for loan without the original title deeds. Even then opposite party acted in a most negligent manner. Certified copy can never be compared to an original document. Certainly complainant has to incur expenses for creating an original title deed by transferring the property to a near relative and retransferring the same etc. We are of the view that the act of opposite party amounts to gross deficiency in service on their part.
In the result complaint allowed. Opposite party is directed to pay complainant an amount of Rs. 1, 00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh only ) as compensation for the deficiency in service along with Rs. 1,000/- (One Thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.
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 15th day of March 2014.
Sd/-
Smt. Seena. H
President
Sd/-
Smt. Shiny. P.R
Member
Sd/-
Smt. Suma K.P
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext. A1 series - True copy of lawyer notice dated 31/10/2012 send to opposite
Party along with Acknowledgement card and Postal Receipt.
Ext. A2 - Reply to lawyer notice dated 06/11/2012
Ext.A3 - Letter sent by opposite party to complainant dated 17/01/2013.
Ext.A4 - Certified Copy of document No. 787/1/1999 dated 03/01/2013.
Ext.A5 - Letter sent by palakkad District Co- Operative Bank, Ottapalam Branch
dated 20/06/2013, regarding rejection of loan.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties
Nil
Witness examined on the side of complainant
PW1 A. Rajagopalan
Witness examined on the side of opposite parties
DW1 Sivaprasad. M
Cost allowed
Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) allowed as cost of the proceeding.
