DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 27th day of March, 2023
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
: Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of filing: 28/09/2022
CC/182/2022
Rajesh
S/o Rajavel, Kadathottil House
Vadanamkurussi Post, Shoranur
Palakkad – 679 121 - Complainant
(By Adv. K.Sasidharan)
V/s
The Manager
Canara Bank, Shoranur Branch
Palakkad – 679 121 - Opposite party
(Ex-parte)
O R D E R
By Smt. Vidya.A, Member
1. Pleadings of the complainant
Complainant availed a loan of Rs. 5 lakhs from the opposite party bank on 22/04/2018 by mortgaging a Settlement deed No: 308/08 of Shoranur SRO. Later the complainant settled the entire loan amount together with interest and the opposite party had issued non-liability certificate on 23/05/2019. Complainant approached the opposite party for the return of the original title deed, but they sought time by raising one or the other reasons. On 26/12/2020, the complainant caused issuance of Lawyer’s notice for which the opposite party send reply stating that the original deed will be returned immediately. But they did not do anything to resolve the issue. Due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complainant is unable to sell or mortgage his property. The opposite party rejected the complainant’s request to give another loan on the basis of that title deed. Complainant had suffered financial loss and mental agony due to the acts of the opposite party. He prays for directing the opposite party to return the original title deed and claims 5 lakhs as compensation for the financial loss, Rs.1 lakh for other losses suffered by him and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of the litigation.
2. The opposite party received notice from this Commission. But they did not appear and were set ex-parte.
3. Complainant filed proof affidavit and Exhibits A1 to A6 were marked from his side.
4. Main points to be considered are
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
- Reliefs if any as cost & compensation.
5. Point No: 1
Complainant’s grievance is that he availed a loan from the opposite party bank by depositing his original title deed (Settlement deed No: 308/08 of Shoranur SRO) and even after the closure of the entire loan, the opposite party did not return the original deed.
6. We have perused the affidavits and documents produced by the complainant. In Ext. A4, the reply notice dated 12/02/2021 issued by opposite party’s counsel, they admit that inspite of thorough search; the opposite party could not find the original title deed with loan papers. They further assured that they are ready to provide certified copy of the same and is taking steps to get the certified copy from the concerned authorities. They promised to lodge FIR in Shoranur Police Station and arrange for paper publication of the reporting of missing of title deed.
7. But after that they did not do anything to resolve the issue. Hence from the evidence adduced, the complainant’s contention appears to be valid. The complainant had made out a prima facie case.
There is a clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not returning the original title deed, even after closing the entire loan. Point No: 1 is decided accordingly.
8. Points 2 & 3
The complainant had suffered financial loss and mental agony due to the acts of the opposite party for which they are liable to compensate.
In the result the complaint is allowed.
We direct
- The opposite party to return the original title deed or if it is irrecoverably lost from their custody, they have to make necessary arrangements to get a certified copy and bear all expenses in connection with that. The opposite party is directed to issue a certificate to the effect that the original is lost form their custody.
- We further direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 75,000/- as compensation for their deficiency in service. Rs. 25,000/- for the losses suffered by the complainant and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of the litigation.
The opposite party shall comply with the directions in this order within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which opposite party shall pay to the complainant Rs. 250/- per month or part thereof until the date of payment in full and final settlement of this order.
Pronounced in open court on this the 27th day of March, 2023.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Documents marked from the side of the complainant :
Ext. A1: Non-liability certificate dated 23/05/2019 (Original).
Ext. A2: Reply letter from bank dated 15/05/2020.
Ext. A3: Lawyer notice dated 26/12/2020.
Ext. A4: Reply notice dated 02/02/2021.
Ext. A5: Postal acknowledgement of lawyer notice dated 26/07/2022.
Ext. A6: Intimation of receipt of notice dated 29/07/2022.
Documents marked from the side of opposite parties: Nil
Witness examined from the complainant’s side: Nil
Witness examined from the opposite parties side: Nil
Cost- Rs. 5,000/-
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
