By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:
The complaint filed against the Opposite Party for not returning the back documents of the title deed pledged at the time of availing loan.
2. The complaint in brief is as follows:- The Complainant availed a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from the Opposite Party's bank in January 2005. For the purpose of loan the documents pledged by the Complainant includes title deed of the property, back documents tax receipt and possession certificate. The liability was closed by the Complainant in August 2010. On 18.08.2010 the Complainant demanded the return of the documents pledged where as the Opposite Party gave back the title deed and offered the Complainant the back documents would be given after two dates. In several occasions afterwards the Complainant had to approach the Opposite Party to get back the documents and it was not given by the Opposite Party which resulted the Complaint.
3. There may be an order directing the Opposite Party to return the original back documents of the title deed along with cost and compensation of Rs.5,000/-.
4. The Opposite Party filed version in short it is as follows:- The Opposite Party admits that the Complainant availed a loan from the Opposite Party's bank and the liability was closed. As a security the Complainant deposited the title deed, possession certificate, encumbrance certificate and land revenue receipts and the loan amount was given to the Complainant on the deposit of this documents. There was no offer from the Opposite Party to give back the title deed of the properties since such documents were not deposited at the time of availing the loan what all documents were deposited by the Complainant were given back and there is proper acknowledgment of the documents by the Complainant. The back document were neither deposited by the Complaint nor it was demanded by the Opposite Party. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. Since the documents pledged at the time of availing loan were returned to the Complainant, the Complainant is not entitled to get any cost or compensation as sought for the complaint is to be dismissed with compensatory cost to the Opposite Party.
5. Points in consideration :-
Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?
Relief and cost.
6. Points No.1 and 2:- The evidence in this case consists of proof affidavit of the Complainant and Opposite Party. Exts.A1 to A3 and B1 to B4 and the oral testimony of Complainant and Opposite Party.
7. The dispute in issue is in respect of the non return of the back documents of the title deed alleged to be pledged at the time of availing loan. The Complainant availed an equitable mortgage loan from the Opposite Party bank. The properties which kept in security at the time of beginning the loan that was in 1986 were assignment deed No.2138/1986 encumbrance certificate, possession certificate and revenue receipt. According to the Complainant in 2005 for the enhancement of the loan amount the back title deed of the property number of the title deed is not specified for the complaint or in affidavit, were deposited as a security and those were not returned to the Complainant at the time of closing the loan. On perusing the document produced by the Complainant and Opposite Party it is sen that the Complainant was returned the documents of settlement deed NO.2138/1986 and 810/1980. The possession certificate, Tax receipt, Purchase certificate (Photo copy) and Location sketch were received by the Complainant. The relevant page of the equitable mortgage register in the Opposite Party's bank is Ext.B4. The particulars of documents and title deed entered in the register are assignment deed No.2138/1986, assignment deed 810/1980 encumbrance certificate, Possession certificate and tax receipt which is in the date of 05.01.2005. The Complainant acknowledged and endorsed in the register that the account is closed and original documents received on 17.08.2010. The Opposite Party is examined as OPW1 and he deposed that the Complainant started loan in 1986 later in 1998 additional loan was taken in security of the same property in 2005. The loan amount was enhanced keeping the property as security. According to the Complainant on closing the liability the documents were released to him except back documents of the title deed. On perusal of the documents and from the oral testimony there is no evidence to substantiate the Complainant that the back documents of the title deeds were kept in deposit as security in the Opposite Party's bank at the time enhancement of the loan. From the light of the above inferences it is to be considered that the Complainant had not kept in security the back documents of the title deed and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed no order as to cost.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 30th September 2011.
Date of filing:04.03.2011.
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
A P P E N D I X
Witness for the Complainant:
PW1. K.K. Thomas. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Party:
OPW1. Sasidharan Manager, SBI Kainatty.
Exhibits for the Complainant:
A1. Pass Book.
A2. Copy of Deed.
A3. Copy of Deed
Exhibit for the Opposite Party:
B1. Receipt dt:17.08.2010.
B2. Legal Report. dt:15.07.1986.
B3. Legal Report. dt:17.06.1998.
B4. Relevant page of the equitable mortgage register (Photo copy).
