IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Friday the 12th day of November, 2021.
Filed on 24-12-2020
Present
- Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar BSc.,LL.B (President )
- Smt. P.R Sholy, B.A.L,LLB (Member)
In
CC/No.339/2020
between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Smt. Girija 1. The General Manager
W/o Radhakrishnan South Indian Bank
Rahul Bhavanam Mission Quarters
Puthukundam T.B.Road, Trissur -688001
Karthikapally
(Adv. Ajith Sankar) 2. The Manager
South Indian Bank
Karthikapally Branch
Pin-690 516
(Adv. P.K.Mathew for Ops)
O R D E R
SRI. S.SANTHOSH KUMAR (PRESIDENT)
Complaint filed u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act,2019
Material averments briefly discussed are as follows:-
During 2017 complainant approached 2nd opposite party manager South Indian Bank, Karthikappally branch for a housing loan and it was agreed. The 2nd opposite party informed complainant to produce original title deed and prior title deed of her husband Radhakrishnan for availing loan. Accordingly complainant entrusted title deed of 7 cents of property and its prior title deed with the manager. It was informed that after 2 weeks the loan will be sanctioned.
2. Thereafter though the complainant visited the branch several times, the loan was not sanctioned and the manager assured that it is in the process. Lastly when the complainant enquired with the bank it was informed that the manager made some malpractice in the accounts and he was arrested by the police. Inspite of repeated request the documents were not returned and hence the complaint is filed for a direction to the bank to return the documents.
3. Opposite party filed a version mainly contenting as follows:-
The complaint is not maintainable and she has not approached the commission with clean hands. The complaint is frivolous, vexatious and scandalous. Complainant is not a consumer as defined u/s.2 of the Consumer Protection Act.
4. The complaint is barred under order II Rule 2 of CPC and Sec. 12. The subject matter of the complaint and subject matter of the OA. No.665/2020 of DRT, Ernakulam are one and the same. It is a suit filed by the opposite party bank on 21/6/2020 against the unauthorized beneficiaries wherein the complainant herein and her husband are arrayed as 43rd and 44th defendant. Complainant had received summons in OA.No.665/2020 of DRT, Ernakulam and thereafter the complaint is filed.
5. Complainant had given an application for a loan of Rs.6,00,000/- and her husband Radhakrishnan handed over the original title deed and a Photostat copy of its prior deed with the bank. So the allegation that original of the prior deed was also handed over to the bank is false. Husband is the property owner and he alone is entitled for return of title deeds.
6. The internal investigation conducted by the opposite party bank had identified various fraudulent activities, inter alia, embezzling of funds from certain customer accounts without their knowledge/ consent, accommodating certain persons/entities with unauthorized monitory consideration etc.. In this regard a crime was registered as FIR No.1190/2017 of Kareelakulangara Police Station at the instance of the Bank. Mr. Brijesh N.B while being the branch head during the relevant period(19/4/2014 to 25/7/2017) had indulged in various fraudulent activities, inter alia, embezzling funds from certain customer accounts without their knowledge or consent/creating fake gold loan account to raise funds to the advantage of certain customers. Crime 1190/2017 was re-registered by the Crime Branch of Police under CB FIR No. 190/CR/EOWKLM/2017 and later, pursuant to the orders of the Hon’ble High Court investigation was taken over by the CBI and case was registered as RC 9(A)/2019/CBI/ACB/Cochin and investigation is in progress.
7. Mr. Brijesh had confessed during the internal investigation of the bank that the funds misappropriated were provided to various persons, of which some of them had accepted receipt of funds as purported loan from the bank. The complainant had given a letter to the branch on 25/8/2017 admitting that an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- was received from the erstwhile manager Mr. Brijesh.N.B for the construction of her house. The investigation officer of Crime Branch had inventoried such title deeds. Petitioner has no cause of action and she is not entitled to get any relief. The complaint is barred by limitation. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with compensatory cost.
8. On the above pleadings following points were raised for consideration:-
1. Whether there is deficiency of service from the part of opposite party bank?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get back the title deeds as prayed for?
3. Reliefs and costs?
9. Evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of PW1. Opposite parties have not adduced any oral evidence Ext.B1, B2, B3series and Ext.B4 to B6 were marked.
10. Point No. 1 and 2:-
PW1 is the complainant in this case. She filed an affidavit in tune with the complaint. During cross examination Ext.B1, B2 and B3 series were marked. Later ExtB4 to B6 were marked by consent.
11. The case of PW1, complainant is that during 2017 she approached the 2nd opposite party the Manager South Indian Bank, Karthikapally Branch for a housing loan. As per the direction she produced the title deed of the property belonging to her husband Radhakrishnan and the previous title deed. After verifying the records the manager assured that the loan will be granted after some time and he kept the records. Again when she contacted the manager he requested to produce other documents and also wanted her husband to put the signature in the loan application. Since the loan was not granted she went to the bank and came to know that the manager was arrested by the police in a misappropriation case. Though she requested the present manager to return the document it was not done and hence the complaint is filed for returning the documents. Opposite parties filed a version mainly contenting that as per the records available with the bank a loan of Rs. 6 lakhs was granted to the complainant and it was admitted by PW1 as per letter dtd. 25/8/2017. The then Manager Mr. Brijesh.N.B misappropriated funds of the bank for which criminal case was registered and it is now being investigated by CBI/ACB/Cochin. It was also contended that the bank has filed OA. No. 665/2020 before the DRT, Ernakulam on 21/6/2020. The complainant and her husband are parties in the OA. Entire records were collected by the CBI and it is not available with the bank. It was also contended that she had approached the DRT to redress her grievance. Complainant got examined as PW1 during her cross examination Ext.B1, B2 and B3series were marked. Opposite parties have not adduced any oral evidence. Ext.B4 to B6 were marked from their side.
12. Admittedly one Mr. Brijesh N.B who was the previous manager of the 1st opposite party mis appropriated funds amounting to crores of rupees for which a case was registered at Kareelakulangara Police as FIR No.1190/2017. Later Crime Branch took over the case and the case was re-registered as FIR No. 190/CR/EOWKLM/2017. Thereafter as per the order of the Hon’ble High Court in WP(C) No. 588/2019 the investigation was taken over by CBI and the case was re-registered as RC 9(A)/2019/CBI/ACB/ Cochin and it is under investigation. Ext.B2 is the order of the Government of Kerala by which investigation was handed over to CBI on the basis of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court. Ext.B3series are the application submitted u/s 19 of the RECOVERY OF DEBTS AND BANKRUPTCY ACT, 1993 by the bank against Sri. N.B Brijesh and others. The case was taken on file as OA No. 665/2020 and it is pending. Ext.B3 (b) is page No.27 of Ext.B3 in which complainant and her husband Radhakrishanan are the 43rd and 44th defendant. Ext. B3 is the description of property of defendant no 44, Radhakrishanan . Ext. B3(d) and (e) are page no. 111 and 112 of Ext.B3 in which the allegations against complainant and her husband are narrated. So admittedly a case is pending before DRT, Ernakulam against complainant and her husband. Ext.B5 is a letter dtd. 23/11/2020 issued by Inspector of Police CBI/ACB/ Cochin to the Branch Manager, South Indian Bank Ltd. Karthikapally to produce documents. The 3rd item is all unaccounted title deeds kept in the branch. Ext.B6 is a copy of application purported to be filed by the complainant before the bank, admitting that she had received Rs. 6,00,000/- as housing loan, from the then manager without creating any document. By Ext.B6 letter she requested the bank to allow her to repay the amount @ of Rs.25,000/- EMI. While PW1 was in the box it was denied by her.
13. Ext.B4 is a judgment dtd. 21/8/2019 of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala WP(C) No.38484/2018 (I). One Lathakumari and Raman pillai filed writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court requesting for a direction to the bank to return the document and other reliefs. As per the judgment the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to dismiss the writ petition leaving open the liberty of the parties to approach the civil court in accordance with law, if they advised so. To sum up it can be seen that PW1 and her husband are parties in OA.No.665/2020 pending before the DRT, Ernakulam in which the allegation is that they had availed loan mortgaging the property. So it is not possible for this Commission to give a direction to return the documents. If the complainant is aggrieved she can agitate the matter before the DRT itself. From Ext.B4 it can be seen that in a similar case the Hon’ble High Court declined to grant a relief of returning the documents. In said circumstances it is not possible to give a direction to the opposite party bank to return the documents at this stage. If PW1 is aggrieved she can approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam in OA.No.665/2020. In said circumstances complainant is not entitled for any favourable order and so these points are founds against her.
14. Point No.3:-
In the result complaint is dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their respective cost.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 12th day of November, 2021.
Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar(President)
Sd/- Smt. Sholy.P.R (Member)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Girija( Complainant)
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
Ext.B1 - Statement of Accounts South Indian Bank
Ext.B2 - Order of the Government of Kerala
Ext.B3 series - application submitted u/s 19 of the Recovery of debts and
bankrupts act 1993
Ext.B4 - Judgment Dtd. 21/8/2019 of Kerala High Court
Ext.B5 - Letter dtd. 23/11/2020
Ext.B6 - Copy of Application
///True Copy ///
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Senior Superintendent
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
