IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Wednesday the 30th day of November, 2011
Filed on 31.03.2011
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.117/11
between
Complainant:- Opposite Party:-
Sri. V.K. Prabhakaran The Manager
Alumparambil House State Bank of Travancore
Thekkanaryadu Muri Zilla Court Road Branch
Komalapuram Village Thathampally P.O.
Avalookkunnu P.O. Alappuzha – 13
Alappuzha – 6 (By Adv. M.Radhakrishnan Nair)
(By Adv. C.S. Hemalal)
O R D E R
SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER)
Sri. Prabhakaran has filed this complaint before the Forum, alleging deficiency in service on the side of the opposite party. The allegations of the complainant are as follows:- In order to get an Agriculture Loan by purchasing a Pumpset, he had availed a loan from the opposite party after mortgaging an extent of 60 cents of property in Sy. No.295/3 of Komalapuram Villagae, covered by the document No.2141/72 which was owned and possessed by him. For availing the loan, he had deposited the original of the said document along with the connected necessary documents before the opposite party. As per the direction of the opposite party he had also deposited the prior deed of the said document in original No.2608/51 before the opposite party. He had obtained the loan after the deposit of the title deeds. He had repaid the entire loan within time and closed the loan A/c. After the closing, the loan A/c with the opposite party, he demanded to return the above said original deeds and other connected documents of the land. He had contacted the opposite party several times and requested to return the deeds and other documents and a certificate to show that he had closed the loan A/c with the opposite party and that they have no charge or lean over the schedule properties already mortgaged. But the opposite party had not returned the documents so far to him. Instead of return the documents, the opposite party had issued a certificate stating the documents are not traceable at present. Since there was no positive approach on the side of the opposite party to get the documents he sent notice to the opposite party, requesting the return the documents. But the opposite party had not turned up and not taken any sincere approach to return the documents. Hence this complaint, seeking proper relief.
2. Notice was issued to the parties. Opposite party entered appearance through counsel and filed version.
3. In the version, the opposite party has admitted that the complainant has availed an Agriculture Loan from them and fully repaid the loan amount by the complainant. Since the documents submitted by the complainant could not be traced out and they issued a certificate to him vide dt. 2.7.2001, stating the fact. It is stated that the complainant never visited the Bank and demanded to return the documents. So, it is to be treated as barred by limitation and that the documents are irrecoverably lost from their possession. It is further stated that they are unaware of the fact that he had contacted any other Bank for fresh loan and that he has not sustained any pecuniary loss or inconvenience.
4. Considering the contentions of the parties, this Forum has raised the following issues for consideration:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the opposite
party?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the documents, since he had closed the
Loan A/c with the opposite party in time?
3) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the compensation and costs from the
opposite party?
4) Regarding the Court cost.
5. Issues 1 to 4:- Complainant has filed proof affidavit in support of his case with documents – Ext.A1 to A9 marked. Ext.A1 is the certificate dt. 2.7.2001 issued to the complainant by the opposite party stating that the documents are not traceable ‘at present’. Ext.A2 is the photo copy of document No.2608/51, Ext.A3 is the photo copy of the document No.2141/72, Ext.A4 is the notice dt. 12.8.10 issued to the opposite party by the complainant regarding to return the documents. Ext.A5 and Ext.A6 are the postal receipt and acknowledgement, Ext.A7 is the certified copy of partition deed No.2608/51, Ext.A8 is the certified copy of partition deed No.2141/72 and Ext.A9 is the original certificate dt. 2.7.2001 issued by the opposite party to the complainant.
6. Opposite party has not filed any proof affidavit and any documents in evidence. The have filed hearing note. Heard the matter in detail.
7. We have fully verified the entire matter of this case and perused the documents filed by the complainant in evidence. It is alleged by the complainant that he had availed an agriculture loan from the opposite party and the loan amount was used for the purchase of one pump set. For availing the said loan amount, the complainant had mortgaged an extent of 60 cents of land in Sy No.295/3 of Komalapuram Village, covered by the document Nos.2141/72 and 2608/51. At the time of execution of the Loan Agreements with the opposite party, complainant had deposited the original of the above said documents before the opposite party along with the required documents (Exts.A2 and A3). After clearing the loan amount and its closure, complainant requested the opposite party to return the same for availing loan from another Bank. But the opposite party had not returned the documents. The complainant contacted the opposite party several times to get the documents. Instead of releasing the original title deeds mentioned above, and other connected documents, of the land the opposite party had issued a certificate dt. 2.7.2001 to the complainant stating that the said deposited documents are not traceable at present. It is alleged that the said certificate was issued after prolonged period and after repeated requests of the complainant. On a perusal of the documents produced by the complainant, we are of the view that the opposite party has to return the original title deeds and other relevant documents to the complainant at the time of closing the loan a/c by the complainant. It can be seen that there is no dispute regarding the remittance of the loan amount or its interest. Complainant remitted the entire amount in time. In such circumstances, the opposite party is fully bound to release the documents to the complainant at that time with a certificate stating that the complainant has closed the loan in time and that opposite party have no lien or charge over the schedule property, since the deposit was made for creating an equitable mortgage by deposit of the original title deeds. But the opposite party has issued a certificate vide dt. 2.7.2001 to the complainant stating that the documents are not traceable at present. Further, verification for trace out the original deeds and other documents are to be taken by the opposite party. But the opposite party has remain silent after issuing the said certificate to the complainant. On verification of the entire matter of this case, we are of the view that the opposite party acted in a most irresponsible way for releasing the original documents. Opposite party has to take note that the missing documents are the originals of the Partition Deeds with different schedules of properties. The certified copies of the said documents will not solve the problem of original documents which was misplaced from the custody of the opposite party. Opposite party cannot escape from the liability and their contentions regarding the documents cannot be accepted, since it lacks merit and without any bonafides. By way of negligence to release the originals of the title deeds and other connected documents to the complainant at the time of closing the loan A/c, the opposite party has committed grossest deficiency in service, culpable negligence, cheating and unfair trade practice. The opposite party is answerable to this. On verification of the entire matter of this case, we are fully convinced that the opposite party has acted in a most irresponsible way, by stating that the documents are not traceable at present. The complainant is fully entitled to get back the documents from the opposite party, since he had remitted the loan amount without default and paid in time. Since there is deficiency in service, negligence, cheating and unfair trade practice on the side of the opposite party, they are fully bound to pay compensation and costs to the complainant. So, after perusal of the entire matter, we are of the further view that the allegations of the complainant are to be treated as genuine and that the complaint is to be allowed as prayed for. All the issues are found in favour of the complainant.
In the result, we hereby direct the opposite party to issue a detailed certificate to the complainant stating that, “the original partition deeds No.2141/72 dt. 28.9.1972 and 2608/1951 and its connected documents which was deposited by the complainant in connection with a Agriculture Loan vide No.ATL/31/80 after mortgaging an extent of 60 cents of landed property in Sy.No.295/3 of Komalapurama Village covered by the said deeds are irrecoverably lost from their possession and that they have no charge, lien or interest over the above said property in any manner and that the complainant had fully repaid the entire loan payable to them in time.” Considering the mental agony, pain, sufferings, inconvenience, loss of money and harassment of the complainant by way of cheating and negligence to release the original title deeds and other documents to the complainant by the opposite party, due to their grossest deficiency in service, culpable negligence and unfair trade practice, we hereby directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation to the complainant and further pay an amount of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) as costs of this proceedings. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the further view that the opposite party is bound to pay punitive costs to the complainant. So we further directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) as punitive costs to the complainant. We further direct the opposite party to comply with this order, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this order. We further ordered that the complainant is free to proceed against the assets of the opposite party, in case any default on the side of the opposite party in complying with this order.
Complaint allowed.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of November, 2011.
Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan:
Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah:
Sd/- Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi:
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 - Certificate dt. 2.7.2001
Ext.A2 - Photo copy of the document No.2608/51
Ext.A3 - Photo copy of the document No.2141/72
Ext.A4 - Notice dt. 12.8.10
Ext.A5 & A6 - Postal receipt and acknowledgement
Ext.A7 - Certified copy of partition deed No.2608/51
Ext.A8 - Certified copy of partition deed No.2141/72
Ext.A9 - Original Certificate dt. 2.7.2001
Evidence of the opposite party:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainants/Opposite party/S.F.
Typed by :-pr/-
Compared by:-
