Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/246/2016

M.Devan, M.Srinivasan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, UCO bank - Opp.Party(s)

T.Palanivel

27 Aug 2022

ORDER

Date of Complaint Filed :29.06.2016

Date of Reservation       :18.08.2022

Date of Order                :27.08.2022

 

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 

                        THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,   : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 246/2016

SATURDAY, THE 27^th DAY OF AUGUST 2022

1. M. Devan,

2. M. Srinivasan,

 

Both sons of Mr. Madavapillai (late),

No.25/14, R.S. Compound,

Adyar, Chennai-600 020.                                                   ... Complainants

-Vs-

 

The Manager,

UCO Bank,

Adyar Branch,

No 37, 1 Main Road,

Gandhi Nagar,

Adyar, Chennai - 600 020.                                                 …Opposite Party

 

******

Counsel for the Complainants      :   M/s. T.Palanivel

Counsel for the Opposite Party    :   M/s. M.Muthukumaran

 

        On perusal of records and upon hearing the oral arguments of the Counsel for the Complainants, and on endorsement made by the Counsel for the Opposite Party, treating the written arguments as oral arguments, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by the President Tmt. B. Jijaa, M.L.,

1.      The Complainants has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to  return the Original documents in respect of the property bearing Plot No.25 in R.S.No.29/2, Block No.8, T.S.No.45/14 of Urur Village, which was mortgaged with the Respondent and  to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards  compensation for delay in returning the original documents of the property and to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards deficiency of service for unauthorisedly withholding the original documents and to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards mental agony and tension by making the Complainants to run from pillar to post.     

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

The Complainant’s mother Mrs. Rajammal, had obtained housing loan from the respondent bank after mortgaging her property bearing Plot No.25 in R.S.No.29/2, Block No.8. T.S.No.45/14 of Urur Village. Thereafter  Mrs. Rajammal died intestate on 23.11.1993 leaving her sons, the Complainants herein as her only legal heirs. They came to know about the said loan, had taken efforts and settled the entire dues pending in the loan account.  After payment of entire loan amount, since 2015 the Complainants were requesting the Opposite Party bank for the return of the original documents in respect of the above said property, which was mortgaged with the Opposite Party bank. However, till date, the Opposite Party has not returned the original documents to Complainants. On 02.08.2006 the Opposite Party bank had sent a letter to its advocate, Mr. R.S.Raman, which discloses that the above said loan account was fully settled and have requested its advocate for the return of all original documents. Despite the same, Complainants have not obtained any original documents till date. The Complainants have been made to run from pillar to post for the collection of the said original documents. It is the bounden duty of the Opposite Party bank to return all the original documents after payment of entire loan amount, however the Opposite Party bank had not returned the same which amounted to deficiency of service. The Complainants have sent two legal notices dated 28.09.2015 & 21.01.2016, seeking return of the Complainants’ original documents, though the same were received by the Opposite Party  bank, they have failed to furnish the same. Hence the complaint.

3. Written Version filed by the Opposite Party in brief is as follows:-

The Complainant’s mother Mrs.Rajammal had availed a Housing Loan during the year 17.12.1989 from the Opposite Party and had committed default in her repayments. It is not factually correct to state that the loan was completed and that the Complainants had been requesting for the return of original documents. The entire narration of facts and events will clearly state that the above complaint itself is barred by limitation and that the Complainants do not have any manner of right whatsoever to prefer the instant complaint against this Opposite Party who are, in no way, responsible. Mrs. R. Rajammal had availed a Housing Loan of Rs.50,000/- from the Opposite Party by offering her immovable property at plot No.25, R.S.Compound Street, Urur, Adyar, Chennai - 600 020, the land measuring an extent of 1200 sq.ft of land comprised in R.S.No.29/2, Block No.8, T.S.No.45/27 within corporation division No. 25 together with the building, on 15.12.1989 as security and confirmed the same by her letter dated 17.12.1989. Mrs. R. Rajammal did not repay the loan, the Opposite Party had filed suit and had obtained a decree subsequently. It has to be mentioned that the Opposite Party had handed over all the loan documents and title documents pertaining to the house stated above to their panel advocate. Thereafter, it is seen that Mrs. R. Rajammal died intestate and also did not clear the loan dues of this Opposite Party. The Complainants had approached them and repaid the loan amount towards full and final settlement of claim of the Opposite Party. As the loan account was closed by the Complainants, the Opposite Party had sent a letter to their panel advocate requesting him to kindly take steps for return of title deeds from the concerned City Civil Court, Chennai. Further, since the case  is very old and also stands settled, records and papers connected with the above account has become remote for the Opposite Party to unearth what happened to the documents of title pertaining to the above property. The original title deeds have been handed over to the Panel advocate, who in turn, has filed the same into Hon'ble City Civil Court, Chennai for adjudication of the case. It was, after passing of many years thereafter, the Complainants have now come with this complaint foisting the blame on the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party is in no way responsible for any of the losses and mental agony that have been caused to the Complainants due to their own lethargic attitude towards settling the outstandings. The documents are not lost anywhere from the end of Opposite Party. They have acted in good faith by handing over the documents to Panel Advocate for filing of suit into Hon'ble Court. The action of the Opposite Party is not intentional either but has acted to recover the amount due from the mother of Complainants. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

4.     The Complainants submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainants, documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-6  were marked. The Opposite Party submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Opposite Party no document was marked.

5.     Points for Consideration

1. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?

2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

3. Whether the Complainants is entitled for reliefs claimed?

4. To what other reliefs the Complainants is entitled to?

Point No.1:-

       The Complainants had paid the entire outstanding due in respect of the Housing Loan availed by their mother Mrs.Rajammal from the Opposite Party and had sought for the return of the original documents from the Opposite Party pertaining to the property bearing Plot No.25 in R.S.No.29/2, Block No.8. T.S.No.45/14 of Urur Village deposited at the time of availing loan. The Opposite Party had not returned the said original documents even after receiving the entire loan outstanding from the Complainant till date. Hence the cause of action is continuous until the return of original documents and the Complaint is well within the period of limitation. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered in favour of the Complaint.

Point No.2:-

       The undisputed facts are that the mother of the Complainant Mrs. Rajammal, had obtained housing loan from the Opposite Party bank by mortgaging her property bearing Plot No.25 in R.S.No.29/2, Block No.8. T.S.No.45/14 of Urur Village. The said Mrs. Rajammal died on 23.11.1993 leaving her sons, the Complainants herein as her legal heirs as found in Exs.A-1 and A-2. The dispute had arisen when the Opposite Party failed to return the original title deeds deposited with the Opposite Party at the time of availing Housing Loan, even after the Complainants had settled the entire  outstanding due payable to the Opposite Party.

      The contention of the Complainant is that the letter dated 02.08.2006, Ex.A-4 issued by the Opposite Party to their panel advocate would reveal that the loan account was fully settled and despite that the Complainant did not get the original documents till date and was made to run from pillar to post for the collection of the said original documents. As per Ex.A-5 and Ex.A-6, the Complainants had sent two legal notices dated 28.09.2015 and 21.01.2016, seeking return of documents, inspite of receipt of the notices the Opposite Party failed to respond.

       The Opposite Party had contended that, the mother of the Complainants Mrs.R.Rajammal  after availing Housing Loan from the Opposite Party did not repay the loan. Hence the Opposite Party had handed over the loan documents to their panel advocate to file case against the said Mrs.R.Rajammal. Thereafter the said Mrs.R.Rajammal died without repaying the loan amount. The Complainants had repaid the loan amount towards full and final settlement  of the claim of the Opposite Party. As the loan was closed the Opposite Party had sent a letter to their panel advocate requesting to take steps for return of title deed from the City Civil Court, Chennai. After passing of many years the Complainants have come forward with the present case which the Opposite Party is in no way responsible because it was the lethargic attitude of the Complainants in settling the outstandings.

      On careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that the Complainants had settled the entire outstanding due in respect of the Housing Loan availed by their mother Mrs.R.Rajammal and sought for return of original title deeds from the Opposite Party deposited at the time of availing Housing Loan. The Opposite Party after receiving the entire loan amount, inspite of returning the original title deeds to the Complainant points their finger on their own panel advocate and blames the Complainant as they had slept over the issue for long time and seeking return of documents belatedly. It is the responsibility of the Opposite Party Bank to follow with their panel advocate and get the return of documents and hand over the same to the Complainant. The act of the  Opposite Party after having received the entire loan amount and  failing  to return the Original Title Deeds to the Complainant amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party, causing mental agony and hardship to the Complainant.

        Therefore we are of the considered view that the Opposite Parties by not returning back the  original documents in respect of property bearing Plot No.25 in R.S.No.29/2, Block No.8. T.S.No.45/14 of Urur Village which was handed over at the time of availing Housing Loan from the Opposite Party amounts to deficiency of service. Accordingly Point No.2 is answered against the Opposite Party.

6.    Point No.3:-

      As discussed and decided in Point No.1, this Commission is of the considered view that the Opposite party had committed deficiency of service and hence liable to return the original documents in respect of the property bearing Plot No.25 in R.S.No.29/2, Block No.8. T.S.No.45/14 of Urur Village, to the Complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for the deficiency in service along with cost of Rs.5000/-. Accordingly, point No.3 is answered in favour of the complainant.

7.     Point No.4 :-

        As the reliefs sought for is granted, the Complainant is not entitled for any other reliefs. Accordingly Point No.4 is answered against the Complainant.

          In the result the complaint is allowed in part. The Opposite Party is directed to return the original documents in respect of the property bearing Plot No.25 in R.S.No.29/2, Block No.8. T.S.No.45/14 of Urur Village, to the Complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) as compensation for the deficiency in service along with cost of Rs.5000/-(Rupees Five Thousand Only), within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest @ 6% p.a from the date of this order till the date of realisation.

       In the result the complaint is allowed.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 27^th of August 2022.

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                   B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT

 

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainants:-

 

Ex.A1	27.03.1995	Death certificate of Rajammal
Ex.A2	20.03.2015	Legal heirship Certificate of Rajammal
Ex.A3	28.03.2005	Payment chellan
Ex.A4	02.08.2006	Letter sent by Respondent bank t their Advocate
Ex.A5	28.09.2015	Legal notice issued by Complainants with acknowledgement card
Ex.A6	21.01.2016	Legal notice issued by Complainants with acknowledgement card.

 

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Party:-

 

NIL

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                   B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT