Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/143/2015

Mr.Jawaid Alam - Complainant(s)

Versus

The General Manager - Opp.Party(s)

M/S.S.D.S.Phillip,K.Krishnamoorthy

28 Apr 2017

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  10.09.2015

                                                                Order pronounced on:  28.04.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

FRIDAY  THE 28^th   DAY OF APRIL 2017

 

C.C.NO.143/2015

 

 

Mr.Jawaid Alam,

Proprietor,

S.S.Leathers Exports,

(Tanners and export of finished leathers)

Having Office at Annaikar Complex,

10/16, M.V.Badran St.,

Periamet, Chennai – 600 003.

 

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1. The General Manager,

Indian Bank, MGT Branch,

No.321 (Old No.155),

Thambu Chetty  St. Chennai – 600 001.

 

2. The Assistant General Manager,

Indian Bank,

MGT Branch,

No.321 (Old No.155), Thambu Chetty St.

Chennai – 600 001.

 

 

 

 

3. The Chief Manager,

Indian Bank,

MGT Branch,

No.321 (Old No.155), Thambu Chetty St,

Chennai – 600 001.

 

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 25.09.2015

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s.S.D.S.Phillip, K.Krishnamoorthy &

                                                                    B.Priya

 

Counsel for 1^st Opposite Party                       : Given up (16.12.2015)

 

Counsel for 2^nd & 3^rd Opposite Parties   : Mrs.S.R.Sumathy

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to return the original title deeds and compensation for mental agony with cost of the Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

           The Opposite Parties had in pursuance of the complainant’s letter dated 22.3.2004 sanctioned credit facility as per communication dated 23.3.2004.  The Complainant in compliance offered his Flat C-3, third floor, Touchstone, 10/15, Vasu Street, Kilpauk, Chennai 10 as set out in item No.2 of the aforesaid communication dated 22.3.2004 was an additional collateral security by deposit of the original title deeds and documents connected thereto.    

          2. The Complainant sent several letters on various dates to the 2^nd Opposite Party to return the documents and though he had acknowledged the letters, he did not return the same.  The personal request of the complainant’s also ended in vain.  The Complainant put to severe hardship and loss, inconvenience and mental agony to him.  Hence the Complainant issued legal notice dated 10.3.2015 that the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency in service in not returning the documents to him. The 3^rd Opposite Party replied to the said notice dated 13.3.2015 and a rejoinder also issued to him by the Complainant.   Thereafter, the Complainant filed this Complaint against the Opposite Parties to return the original title deeds of his Flat and also compensation for mental agony with the cost of Complainant.    

3. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTIES 2 & 3 IN BRIEF

          The Complainant availed credit facility from the Bank.  It is true that the Complainant mortgaged his Flat C-3, Third Floor, Touchstone 10/15, Vasu Street, Kilpauk and Chennai-10 and deposited the original title deed and documents and created equitable mortgage in favour of the Bank.  It is true that the Complainant discharged the entire existed liability on 21.8.2004, but the Complainant did not turn up to collect the original title deeds in spite of informing him.  The original document could be released only upon production of some photo ID proof by the Complainant.  Hence, the respondent bank insisted upon production of the photo ID proof.  But the Complainant failed to turn up with the same to receive those documents.  Those original documents are presently readily lying in the custody of these Opposite Parties and the respondent bank is ready to return those original documents to the Complainant before this Hon’ble Court. Hence the Opposite Parties prays to dismiss the Complaint with cost.

4. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

5. POINT NO :1 

          The admitted facts are that the Complainant approached the Opposite Parties to sanction credit facility for his business and the 2^nd Opposite Party sanctioned credit facility under Ex.A1 communication dated 23.3.2004 and to avail such a facility, the Complainant deposited his document of title deed in respect of his property i.e, Flat C-3, 3^rd Floor, Touch Stone, 10/15 Vasu Street, Kilpauk, Chennai-10  and after availing such credit facility for some time, the Complainant also discharged the entire liability on 21.8.2004 and even after discharge of credit facility, the Opposite Parties 2&3 have not returned the documents to the Complaint. 

          6. The Complainant wrote Ex-A4 letter dated 15.12.2004 to the 2^rd Opposite Party to return the documents deposited by him after clearing the credit facility.  He did not return the documents.  Again the Complainant wrote Ex-A5 & A6 letters in the year 2010 and Ex-A7 & A8 letters in the year 2011 to the 3^rd Opposite Party and Ex-A9 & A10 letters in the year 2012 to the 2^nd Opposite Party on various dates to return the documents to him.  Even after the above mentioned letters, the 2 & 3^rd Opposite Party failed to return the documents.  Hence the Complainant issued Ex-A11 legal notice dated 10.3.2015 to the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 and for the said notice the 3^rd Opposite Party gave Ex-A12 reply requesting the Complainant to furnish certain documents. 

7. The Complainant sent Ex-A13 rejoinder notice to the 3^rd Opposite Party enclosing the letters requested by him.  Even after such a rejoinder the Opposite Parties have not returned the documents to Complainant.  The admitted case of the Opposite Parties 2&3 is that the Complainant discharged the liability on 21.8.2004.  After discharge of liability the Complainant wrote several letters as stated supra and also legal notice and also furnishing required documents under Ex-A13 in the year 2015 for more than 10 years the Opposite Parties 2&3 have not returned the documents clearly establishes that the Opposite Parties 2&3 have committed negligent act. 

8. The learned counsel for the Opposite Parties 2&3 argued that on receipt of notice in this case on the very 1^st hearing they are ready with documents to return to the Complainant and however the Complainant has not furnished his I D proof along with Ex-A13 rejoinder, they are unable to return the documents to the Complainant and hence they have not committed any deficiency in service.  According to the Complainant, he is already having Account with the Opposite Parties and in that account already provided ID to them.  Ex-A2 is the statement of the account of the Complainant issued by the Opposite Parties.  It is not the case of the Opposite Parties that after Ex-A13 they have obtained ID proof from the Complainant.  After five months of issuing Ex-A13, the Complainant had filed this Complaint in this Forum.  During the five months there was no correspondence between the Opposite Parties and the Complainant.  Hence, without getting ID proof from the Complainant, how the Opposite Parties are ready to handover the documents to the Complainant in the very first hearing.  This attitude of the Opposite Parties only shows their negligent act in not handing over the documents to the Complainant and hence it is held that the Opposite Parties 2 &3have committed deficiency in service.    However, in respect of the 1^st Opposite Party the counsel for Complainant made endorsement on 16.12.2015 giving up the relief sought against him.  

09. POINT NO:2

          Admittedly the documents are ready with the Opposite Parties in the 1^st hearing to handover to the Complainant.  The said documents also received by the Complainant in the subsequent hearing.  The Opposite Parties counsel argued that in the very 1^st hearing they are ready to handover the document, the question of granting compensation to the Complainant does not arise.  Such argument of the counsel cannot hold well, since the documents were not handed over to the Complainant more than 10 years from the date of discharge.  However, considering the situation that the Opposite Parties 2&3 ready to hand over the documents and also subsequent hearing received by the Complainant, a meager  amount of compensation can be awarded to the Complainant for the mental agony suffered by him.  Accordingly, it would be appropriate to order a sum of Rs.5,000/-  (Rupees five thousand only) towards  compensation for mental agony,  besides a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses would meet ends of justice. The Complaint in respect of the 1^st Opposite Party is liable to be dismissed as given up. The other relief sought in the Complaint is also liable to be dismissed. 

          In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties 2 &3 jointly or severally are ordered to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five  thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of
Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only)  towards litigation expenses.  The Complaint in respect of the 1^st Opposite Party is dismissed as given up.  The other relief sought in the Complaint is also dismissed. 

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 28^th day of April 2017.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 23.03.2004  Photo copy of letter  2^nd Opposite Party to Complainant

Ex.A2 dated 17.04.2004 Photo copy of PCL account Statement of 3^rd  Opposite  

                                                                                       Party to the Complainant

 

Ex.A3 dated 21.08.2004 Photo copy of Advice 3^rd  Opposite Party to Complainant

 

Ex.A4 dated 15.12.2004  Photo copy of letter  Complainant to 2^nd Opposite Party

 

Ex.A5 dated 15.03.2010  Photo copy of letter Complainant to 3^rd Opposite Party

 

Ex.A6 dated 11.11.2010  photo copy of letter  Complainant to 3^rd Opposite Party

 

Ex.A7 dated 25.08.2011 Photo copy of letter Complainant to 3^rd Opposite Party

 

Ex.A8 dated 09.09.2011 Photo copy of letter Complainant to 3^rd Opposite Party

 

Ex.A9 dated 20.01.2012 Photo copy of letter  Complainant to 2^nd Opposite Party

 

Ex.A10 dated 10.07.2012 Photo copy of letter Complainant to 2^nd Opposite Party

 

 

Ex.A11 dated 10.03.2015 photo copy of notice Complainant’s counsel to 1^st & 2^nd

                                                                                                   Opposite Parties

 

Ex.A12 dated 13.03.2015 photo copy of reply letter  3^rd Opposite Party to

                                                                                         Complainant’s counsel

 

Ex.A13 dated 27.03.2015  Photo copy of rejoinder notice Complainant’s counsel  

                                                                                           to 3^rd Opposite Party

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES :

 

                                      ……..NIL ……..

 

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT