Tamil Nadu
South Chennai
CC/421/2016
A.Kasthuri - Complainant(s)
Versus
The General Manager, State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)
C.Umashankar
15 May 2023
ORDER
Date of Complaint Filed : 19.12.2016
Date of Reservation : 26.04.2023
Date of Order : 15.05.2023
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.
PRESENT: TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L., : PRESIDENT
THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L., : MEMBER I
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.421/2016
MONDAY,THE 15thDAY OF MAY 2023
Mrs. A.Kasthuri
W/o.Mr.G.A.Durai
aged about 50 years having address at
No. 25/ 33,T.M. Mastri Street,
Thiruvanmiyur,
Chennai-600 041. .. Complainant.
- Vs-
1.The General Manager,
State Bank of India
RACP Branch,
Anna Salai,
Chennai-600002.
2.The Assistant General Manager,
State Bank of India, OMR Road,
New No-4/952 and 4/952A , 3rd floor,
Rajiv Gandhi Salai,
Perungudi,
Chennai-600096.
3.The Manager
Shasthri Nagar Branch,
Old No-17, New No-31,
M.G.Road,Shasthri Nagar,
Adyar,
Chennai-600 020. .. Opposite Parties.
* * * * *
Counsel for the Complainant : M/s. C.Umashankar,
P. Sethu, B.P Vinoth., Adv.,
Counsel for 1st Opposite Party : Exparte on 01.03.2017
Counsel for Opposite Parties 2 & 3 : M/s. S. Makesh, Advocate
On perusal of records and having heard the oral arguments of the Counsel for the Complainant and the Counsel for the 2nd and 3rd Opposite Parties, this Commission delivered the following:
ORDER
Pronounced by the President Tmt. B. Jijaa, M.L.,
(i) The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to direct the Opposite Parties to return the original titled deeds viz., 1.Document Numbers 128/1929, 1382/1948 and 8135/1975 2. Certificate on the extract from the town survey land register dated 02.03.2001 in CA. No.118/2001 3. Origina E.C No.1216, 4591,3552, 13834, 8940, 21676 4. Approved original CMDA plan 1011008/1997 5. Approval for building construction dated 05.03.1997 in PPA6696/1996 within a stipulated period or in the alternative to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as damages and a notification to the sub registrar office as well as other concerned governmental agencies with regard to loss of the above said documents and to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/-(Rs.35,000/- for monetary loss and Rs.5,000/- for mental agony and Rs.10,000/- for expenses).
I. The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-
1. The Complainant submitted that she is the absolute owner of the property at New No-25, T.M.Maistry street, Thiruvanmiyur ,Chennai-600041, which she got by way of a partition deed dated 19.11.1975. She has also got patta, approved plan and put up a Super structure. She married one Mr.G.A.Durai and begotten 3 children 1) Kalpana 2) Sujatha 3) Sri Balaji. Mr.Sri Balaji, Son of the Complainant after completing his Engineering course opted to join M.S. for his higher education, for which a huge amount was required for payment of fees etc. On coming to know about the educational loan facility Complainant had approached the State bank of India, Shasthri Nagar Branch. After scrutinizing the entire papers, the Opposite Parties bank satisfied themselves to provide the loan to the Complainant.
2. The Complainant submitted that pursuant to the said completion of all formalities the loan was sanctioned for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty lakhs only). Further the sanction of said educational loan was also intimated to her in ELT No.31499341952 and as per the legal requirements a Memorandum of deposit of title deeds was also executed on 03.12.2010 relating to the property in question in Document No.9096/2010 in favour of 3rd Opposite Party Bank.
3. The Complainant submitted that at that time of availing the
loan, Complainant's immovable property at New No-25,T.M. Maistry street, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-600041 was offered as security together with all original title documents, Parental documents, Plan, Patta pertaining to the said mortgaged property to the 3rd Opposite Party bank.
4. The Complainant submitted that after completing his higher education the son of the Complainant started earning and by his income on 26.12.2014 Complainant foreclosed the said loan and a No due certificate has also been issued to the Complainant by the Chief Manager, S.B.I., Shasthiri Nagar, Adyar, Chennai i.e the 3rd Opposite Party herein. The Complainant has sought for the documents to be returned which were given as security for the loan. The said bank was promising to return the said documents but they were dilly dallying to hand over the same. After a long period the 3rd Opposite Party had stated in their letter dated 22.04.2016 that they have lost all original documents pertaining to the Complainant house at No-25, T.M. Maistry street, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-600041 which was given as security to the Loan. The Complainant was put to great shock by the answer given by 3rdOpposite Party. The Complainant did not know what to do without the original documents. She was perplexed. The property which was given as Security to the bank is the only dwelling house for her. She has two daughters to get married for which the property document are necessary to raise loan. The husband of the Complainant is a retired police Sub-Inspector. He is also aged and sick. In this situation the statement of the bank that they lost the original documents given as security is a great blow to her. She is suffering a great mental agony. Further she fell sick because of depression.
5. The Complainant submitted that without returning the original documents Complainant will be put to great loss, hardship and irreparable damages. Moreover, it is the duty of all Opposite Parties to trace the Complainant's documents and handover the same to the Complainant. It is an act of clear Negligence committed and dereliction of duty on part of bank officials. Moreover, it is nothing but deficiency of service.
6. The Complainant humbly submits that the registration of the said mortgage was made in pursuant to ELT No;- 31499341952 against
the said property in Document No-9096/2010 in Joint Sub registrar -I (In the cadre of District Registrar ) Chennai south which was cancelled after Complainant's repeated requests only.
7. The Complainant submitted that all original documents given as security are very vital and there are fair chances of Misusing of original documents in future. Further Complainant being an illiterate house wife she cannot run behind various government officials to get her documents and save her property.
8. The Complainant humbly submits that she also issued an legal notice dated 15.10.2016 to the Opposite Parties which was delivered to them and there has been no reply for the Opposite Party till date. Hence the complaint.
II. The 1st Opposite Party was set ex parte:
Notice was sent to the Opposite Parties and was duly served to the Opposite Parties. Despite the notice being served, the 1st Opposite Party failed to appear before this Commission either in person or by an Advocate on the hearing date and not filed any written version on its side. Hence the 1st Opposite Party was called absent and set ex-parte on 01.03.2017. Subsequently, the case was proceeded to be heard on merits.
III. Written Version of 2nd Opposite Party adopted by 3rd Opposite Party is as follows:
9. This 2nd Opposite Party submitted that it is true that the Complainant had approached the 2nd Opposite Party bank for availing education loan of Rs.20 Lakhs for their son’s education and the said loan was sanctioned in Ref. No.ELT No.31499341952 and the deposit of title deeds had been made by the Complainant with the 2nd Opposite Party for getting the education loan.
10. This 2nd Opposite Party submitted that it is true that the Complainant had repaid the loan and the Opposite Party had issued
no due certificate and also lifted the attachment made in the encumbrance of the Complainant and are all certified copies of their true originals and no original documents had been submitted by the Complainant as stated by them. It will be evident from the document maintained by the 2nd Opposite Party i.e. equitable mortgage register in which it is very clearly mentioned with regard to the deposit of documents submitted by the Complainant herein and the true copy of the said equitable mortgage register vide EM/ER/144/ 13289 it is mentioned very clear in the said register that the documents submitted by the Complainant are certified copy of the respective originals. Further the Opposite Party while shifting their records from their office to the OMR some of the documents had been misplaced with other files and till today the 2nd and 3rd Opposite Party taking their best efforts to trace out the records pertaining to the Complainant property.
11. This 2nd Opposite Party submitted that when they applied for the certified copy of the document pertaining to the Complainant property it is informed by the Sub Registrar Office that the said volume of document along with some other document had been kept under lock and seal as per the order of the Court and hence the 2nd Opposite Party was not in a position to obtain the certified copies since the Complainant itself had deposited only the certified copies and not the originals as stated by them.
12. This 2nd Opposite Party submitted that the Complainant is
very well aware that he had submitted only the certified copy of the
documents and the Complainant for the reasons best known to him had approached this Hon'ble Forum with unclean hands which should not be entertained by this Hon'ble Forum.
13. This 2nd Opposite Party submitted that of course there was
latches on the side of the 2nd Opposite Party which is not intentional and as stated above due to the shifting the documents from this branch to OMR for safe custody of all the documents it has been misplaced with some other files and till now the 2ndOpposite Party is taking their best efforts to trace out the certified copies of the documents submitted by the Complainant while availing the loan. Infact, this 2nd Opposite Party had also accepted to pay the charges obtaining the certified copy of the documents of the Complainant in the above said matter.
14. Therefore in the above circumstances it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Forum may be pleased to dismiss the above complaint against this Opposite Party and thus render justice.
IV. The Complainant has filed his proof affidavit, in support of his claim in the complaint and has filed 16 documents which are marked as Ex.A1 to A16. The 2nd & 3rd Opposite Parties had submitted their proof affidavit and Ex.B1 document was marked on their side. Both side written arguments filed.
V. Points for Consideration:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?
2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?
3. To what other relief, the Complainant is entitled to?
POINT NOs:1 to 3:-
15. The undisputed facts are that the Complainant had availed Education loan for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- from the 2nd Opposite Party vide loan agreement No. ELT No.39419341952 by depositing title deeds in respect of the property at New No.25, T.M.Mestry Street, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai 600 041, as security for the loan availed from the Opposite Parties. It is also not in dispute that the Complainant had foreclosed the said loan and no due certificate was issued to the Complainant by the Opposite Parties. The dispute arose when the Complainant sought for the return of original documents given as security for the loan and the bank failed to return the same.
16. The contention of the Complainant is that he had approached the Opposite Parties bank for availing educational loan for his son. The Opposite Party had sanctioned the loan for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-. As per the legal requirement, a memorandum of deposit of title deeds was executed on 3.12.2020 in Document No. 9096 of 2010 in favour of the 3rd Opposite Party’s bank, for the said immovable property belonging to the Complainant. At the time of availing loan the Complainant had offered the immovable property at New No.25, T.M.Mestry Street, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai 600 041, as security together with all original documents, parent documents, plan, patta in respect of the said mortgaged property to the 3rd Opposite Party. After completing his higher education, the Complainant’s son by his income had foreclosed the said loan on 26.12.2014 and no due certificate was also issued to the 3rd Opposite Party. The Complainant sought for return of documents given as security for the loan, the bank was delaying to hand over the same. The 3rd Opposite Party by his letter dated 22.4.2016 had informed that they had lost all original documents, that was given as security for the loan availed by the Complainant.
17. The Opposite Parties admitted that they had sanctioned loan in Ref No.ELT No.31499341952 and the Complainant had deposited the title deeds to the 2nd Opposite Party for getting the educational loan. The Opposite Party admitted that the Complainant had repaid the loan and that the Opposite Party had issued no due certificate and also lifted attachment made under the Complainant had submitted all certified copies of documents and no original documents had been submitted by the Complainant. It is evident from the document maintained by the 2nd Opposite Party i.e. equitable mortgage register that the documents submitted by the Complainant are certified copies of the respective originals. Further the Opposite Parties while shifting their records from their OMR office some of the documents had been misplaced with other files and they are taking best efforts to trace out the records pertaining to the Complainant’s property. Further submitted that when they applied for the certificate copies of documents pertaining to the Complainant’s document, it was informed by the said Registrar office that the said document had been kept under lock and key as per the Court order and hence the 2nd Opposite Party was not in a position to obtain the certified copies, since the Complainant himself had deposited only the certified copies and not the originals.
18. As regards the contention of the Complainant that the Complainant had submitted original documents in respect of her property as security for the loan availed by her from the Opposite Party and that after closure of the entire loan amount, the Complainant is entitled for the return of original documents, the Opposite Party had submitted that the Complainant had produced only certified copies of the documents and that the same was reflected in Ex.B1. A perusal of Ex.B1 which is the Register maintained by the bank with regard to the documents of the Complainant would show the particulars of the documents deposited by the Complainant with the Bank which are as follows:
Particulars of documents/title deeds
1. 128/1929 26.01.29 Certified copy of the sale deed Original
2. 1378/48 12.07.43 Certified copy of the sale deed Original
3. 8135/75 19.11.75 Partition deed –certified copy Original
4. 2780 06.12.93 Patta in the name of A. Kasthuri Original
5. PPA 6696/96 05.03.97 Planning permission Original
6. 113/97 02.05.97 Approved plan – Drawing Original
7. 13834 07.12.04 EC from 15.09.81 to 31.12.85 Original
8. 8940 16.12.04 EC from 01.01.74 to 14.09.81 Original
9. 4591 22.11.04 EC from 01.01.86 to 21.11.2004 Original
10. 12162 15.07.10 EC from 01.01.86 to 13.07.2010 Original
11. 17725 06.10.2010 EC from 01.01.2010 to 05.10.2010 Original
19. From Ex.A7, which is the memorandum relating to deposit of title deed executed by the Complainant in favour of the Opposite Parties on 3.12.2010, it is evident that the Complainant had deposited original partition deed dated 19.11.75 bearing Document No. 8135/1975 registered in the office of SRO, Chennai South. Further as per Ex.A10, the letter issued by the 3rd Opposite Party, dated 22.4.2016 to the Complainant it is specifically mentioned that the original partition deed No. 8135/1975 was misplaced and will be handed over if found in future, with other certified copies of parent documents. As per Ex.A8, the letter dated 26.12.2014 issued by the 3rd Opposite Party’s bank, it is clear that the educational loan availed by the Complainant was closed with full recovery of upto date interests and the security has not been extended to cover any other loan availed by the Complainant.
20. On perusal of records, and upon hearing the submissions of both the counsels, the Opposite Parties after having received the entire due amount from the Complainant towards the loan availed by her from the Opposite Parties, had failed to return the original documents to the Complainant which was deposited by the Complainant as security for the loan availed causing mental agony, and hardship to the Complainant.
21. The Complainant relied on the order passed by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in CC.No.46 /2014 reported in CDJ 2018 (CONS) 8/11 wherein it was held that the Opposite Parties are liable to pay compensation for failing to return the documents which were entrusted to them. Further reliance was placed on by the Complainant on the order passed by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in C.C No.2218/2018 reported in CDJ 2023 Consumer Case No.089 where compensation was given to the Complainant for the loss of documents entrusted to the Opposite Party.
22. In view of the above discussions, this commission holds that the Opposite Party by not returning the original documents deposited by the Complainant at the time of availing loan, even after closure of the loan account, had committed deficiency in service.
23. One of the main relief sought for by the Complainant is to return the original documents which was handed over to the Complainant at the time of availing loan in ELT No.31499341952. Admittedly the Complainant had cleared the educational loan with the Opposite Party and he had requested the Opposite Party to hand over the original documents. The Opposite Parties have not informed as to what steps have been taken by the Opposite Parties to secure the interest of the Complainant in respect of the missing documents as mentioned in the letter dated 22.4.2016, and could not be found till date. Hence it is clear that the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency in service in not returning back the original documents submitted by the Complainants. In the said circumstances as the documents submitted by the Complainant is found to be missing, we are of the considered opinion that the Opposite Party is directed to take alternate steps to secure the interest of the Complainant in respect of the missing documents by registering complaint before the concerned Police, regarding the missing of the original documents. The same should be published in English and Tamil Daily news paper circulating in Chennai and to produce certified copies of the original documents. On preparing such documents, the Opposite Parties should hand over the same to the Complainant. The Opposite Parties has also to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for physical, mental agony, pain and suffering and sum of Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses to the Complainant within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Accordingly the points are answered.
In the result, this complaint is allowed in part. The Opposite Parties are directed to take alternate steps to hand over the certified copies of original documents deposited by the Complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service, physical, mental agony, pain and suffering caused to the Complainant along with a sum of Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses to the Complainant within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 15th May 2023.
T.R. SIVAKUMHAR B.JIJAA
MEMBER I PRESIDENT
List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-
Ex.A1 | 22.01.1929 | Sale deed Document No.128 of 1929 |
Ex.A2 | 14.07.1948 | Document No.1378 of 1948 |
Ex.A3 | 20.11.1975 | Partition Deed Document No.8135 of 1975 |
Ex.A4 | 05.03.1997 | CMDA Approval issued in favour of the Complainant |
Ex.A5 | 05.03.1997 | Approved plan issued in favour of the Complainant by the CMDA authorities |
Ex.A6 | 02.03.2001 | Patta issued in favour of the Complainant |
Ex.A7 | 03.12.2010 | Memorandum relating to Deposit of Title Deeds Executed by the Complainant in favour of Opposite Party |
Ex.A8 | 26.12.2014 | Letter issued by 3rd Opposite Party Bank to the 1st Opposite Party regarding closure of the Loan/ETL 31499341952 |
Ex.A9 | 11.03.2016 | Letter issued by the Joint Sub-Registrar North Madras to the 2nd Opposite Party stating that the Documents could not be traced |
Ex.A10 | 22.04.2016 | Letter issued by the 3rd Opposite Party to the Complainant regarding loss of documents |
Ex.A11 | 03.05.2016 | Encumbrance certificate 9 series |
Ex.A12 | 15.10.2016 | Postal Challans |
Ex.A13 | 15.10.2016 | Legal Notice issued by the Complainant |
Ex.A14 | 17.10.2016 | Acknowledgement Card – 3rd Opposite Party |
Ex.A15 | 17.10.2016 | India Post Tracking – 2nd Opposite Party |
Ex.A16 | 18.10.2016 | India Post Tracking – 1st Opposite Party |
List of documents filed on the side of the 2nd & 3rd Opposite Parties:-
Ex.B1 |
| Register maintained by the bank with regard to documents of the customer |
T.R. SIVAKUMHAR B.JIJAA
MEMBER I PRESIDENT
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
Bhanu Pratap
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)
Bhanu Pratap
Featured RecomendedHighly recommended!
Experties
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Phone Number
7982270319
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.