DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD Dated this the 7th day of June 2010 .
Present : Smt. H. Seena, President : Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member : Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member
C.C.No.128/2009 V.K. Vargheese S/o. Kuriakose Vallikkunnel House Olimkadavu (P.O) Palakkad. - 678 706 - Complainant (Party in person) Vs
1. The Chief Manager State Bank of Travancore Vadakkanchery Palakkad. (Adv. John John)
2. The Regional Manager State Bank of Travancore Palakkad - Opposite parties ( Adv. John John)
O R D E R By Smt. Seena.H, President. Brief case of the complainant: Complainant availed an Agricultural Loan from the opposite party Bank in the year 1994. Entire amount with interest was paid and loan was closed in the year 2004. The grievance of the complainant is that after closing the said loan, the title deeds deposited with the Bank as security at the time of availing loan was not returned to the complainant. Complainant demanded back the documents several times. As the same was not received, complainant filed a complaint before the Banking Ombudsman on 12/06/2009. Ombudsman advised the opposite party to recreate a fresh document in the name of the complainant at the cost of the opposite parties. Complainant submits that the opposite parties had not taken any positive steps for compliance of the terms of settlement. Complainant caused a lawyer notice dated 13/01/2009 to the opposite parties. Complainant submits that due to the act of opposite parties, complainant suffered loss to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-. - 2 - complainant entered in to an agreement for the sale of the said property for raising fund for the educational purpose of his daughter. It did not materialised for want of original deeds. Further he approached Canara Bank for loan. Loan was not granted for want of original title deeds. According to the complainant non return of title deeds even after closing of loan amounts to clear deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence the complaint. Complainant prays that opposite parties may be directed to take steps to register the said property in the name of complainant's wife first and subsequently to transfer it in the name of complainant and also claims Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the deficiency in service.
The contentions of opposite parties are as follows: Opposite parties contended that the complaint is not maintainable and complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. The transaction between the opposite parties and the complainant is purely a contractual one and hence forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Moreover the transaction between the complainant and opposite party was over after the closure of transaction hence the complaint is not maintainable. Opposite parties further contended that complaint is barred by limitation. The transaction between the 1st opposite party and the complainant was over in the month of January 2004 and the complaint filed after 5 years of the closure of loan is barred by limitation. Opposite parties admitted that the complainant availed an Agricultural Loan in the year 1994. The said loan was fully discharged in the year 2004. It is submitted on behalf of opposite parties that in ordinary course the practice followed by the Bank is that the documents which were obtained by the Bank as security for advancing loan will be handed over to the concerned parties on closure of loan and the acknowledgment of the same will be received. In the present case also after the closure of the loan by the complainant all the original documents were handed over to the complainant and the acknowledgment was also received. It is further stated that the acknowledgment received from the complainant was misplaced by the Bank. The complainant filed a complaint before the Banking Ombudsman and Banking Ombudsman has advised the Bank to bear the cost of recreating a fresh document in complainant's name . Hence the opposite parties took advise from the legal department and the legal - 3 - department advised the opposite parties that the lawful procedure which is to be followed in the case of misplacing of original document is to obtain certified copy of the deed from the concerned Sub Registrar authorities after making a publication. Hence the opposite parties informed the complainant that they are ready and willing to bear all expenses to obtain a certified copy from the registering authorities. Further submission is that the prayer of the complainant is not legally sustainable.
Evidence adduced by the complainant consists of affidavit and Exhibits A1 to A13 marked. Opposite parties filed affidavit. No documentary evidence on the part of opposite parties.
Issues for consideration are: Whether complaint is maintainable ? Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties ? if so what are the reliefs and cost?
Issue No. 1 Opposite parties has raised a contention that since the transaction between the complainant and opposite parties being purely contractual, the forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Further as the complaint was filed 5 years after the closure of loan, it is specifically barred by Sec.24.A of the Consumer Protection Act.
Section 2(1) (0) Service is defined under the Consumer Protection Act as follows. “It means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes the provision of facilities in connection with Banking, financing, Insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, boarding or lodging or both, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other informations”.
It is clear that banking service is specifically included in the list. Hence the 1st contention raised by opposite party is unacceptable.
It is admitted by both parties that the loan was closed in the year 2004. It is pleaded in - 4 - the affidavit that complainant orally demanded the documents several times, but every time opposite parties requested for time in searching out the same. As the complainant was convinced that the documents will not be returned, he preferred a complaint before the Banking Ombudsman in the year 2009. Ombudsman advised the opposite party Bank to take steps to recreate a fresh document in the name of complainant. As the said direction was also not complied, complainant caused a lawyer notice dated 13/01/2009 to opposite parties. Complaint is filed on 18/09/2009. It can be seen that the cause of action is a continuing one and complaint filed on 18/09/2009 is not barred by limitation.
Issue No.2 The definite case of the complainant is that after closure of the loan, the title deeds of the property deposited as security was not returned. Opposite party on the other hand contended that the said documents were returned, but the acknowledgment of the same was misplaced by the Bank. It is seen by Exhibit A9 that the matter was taken up before the Banking Ombudsman and Ombudsman directed the opposite party bank to take steps to recreate a fresh document in the name of the complainant. It is evident from Exhibit A7 lawyer notice dated 13th January 2009 that the opposite parties has not so far taken any positive steps to settle the grievance. Exhibit A1, A4 & A6 documents clearly reveals the fact that the complainant has suffered a lot for want of original title deeds. It is true that usually Bank will certainly insists for the original document at the time of availing loan, even if certified copy of the same is submitted. Certified copy is in no way equal to the original document. The stand of opposite party that acknowledgment for receipt of the documents were misplaced seems to be a very feeble argument. Opposite parties has not placed before us any reliable evidence for proving the same. Other than pleadings no documentary evidences were placed by the opposite parties.
The pleadings, affidavits and the evidences on records clearly proves the case of the complainant. - 5 - Issue No.3 Complainant has sought a prayer to direct the opposite parties to register the deed in the name of complainant's wife first and subsequently to transfer in his name . The Forum is not in a position to allow the said prayer. Complainant is entitled for compensation on account of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and also certified copy of the original documents lost.
In view of the above discussions, we are of the view that complaint be allowed. Opposite parties are directed to take steps for obtaining the certified copy of the documents lost and the same shall be handed over to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of order . Opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for the deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and Rs.2,000/- as cost of the proceedings. Order to be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the whole amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till realisation.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 7th day of June, 2010 PRESIDENT (SD)
MEMBER (SD) MEMBER (SD)
APPENDIX
Date of filing: 18/09/2009
Witness examined on the side of Complainant Nil Witness examined on the side of Opposite party Nil - 6 - Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant Ext. A1 – Receipt No. 2103 of Details of Refund of Prof P.C. Thomas Classes
2. Ext. A2 – Fees details of R.V.S. Institution of Health Sciences, College of Nursing. 3. Ext. A3 - Tuition Fees receipt of R V S Institute of Health Sciences 4. Ext. A4 – Details of documents to be produced when taking Agricultural Loan from Canara Bank 5. Ext. A5 – Copy of Application for Education Loan of Canara Bank 6. Ext. A6 – Fees details of St. John's College of Nursing dated 17th Nov 2007. 7. Ext. A7 – Copy of Lawyer notice dated 13/01/2009 8. Ext. A8 - Copy of acknowledgement card 9. Ext. A9 – Letter dated 29th April, 2009 of Banking Ombudsman 10. Ext. A10 - Copy of letter of State Bank of Travancore dated 16/05/2009 11. Ext.A11 - Copy of letter of State Bank of Travancore, Vadakkencherry. 12. Ext. A12 - Copy of letter of State Bank of Travancore addressed to Regional Transport Officer 13. Ext. A 13 - Letter dated 17th June, 2009 of Banking Ombudsman Exhibits marked on the side of the Opposite Party Nil Forums Exhibits Nil Costs Allowed
| | HONORABLE Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member | HONORABLE Smt.Seena.H, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member | | 
