Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/51/2014

D.Pandian - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Personal Senior Manager, Union Bank - Opp.Party(s)

V.Manisekaran

23 Apr 2018

ORDER

                                                                                                                             Date of Filing  : 07.01.2014

                                                                                                                                     Date of Order : 23.04.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.,                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.                                :  MEMBER-I

 

C.C. No.51 /2014

DATED THIS MONDAY THE 23^RD DAY OF APRIL 2018

                                 

D. Pandian,

S/o. Mr. S. Doss,

No.18/1, Akbar Sahib Street,

Chepauk,

Chennai – 600 005.                                                .. Complainant.                                                        ..Versus..

 

The Personal / Senior Manager,

Union Bank,

L1, 3^rd Avenue Annexe,

Opp. to Indira Nagar Water Tank,

Indira Nagar Branch,

Adyar,

Chennai – 600 020.                                             ..  Opposite party.

          

Counsel for complainant           :  Mr. V. Manisekaran & another

Counsel for Opposite party       :  Mr. S. Parthasarathy

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking return of the original sale deed of the complainant bearing document No.656 of 2004  dated:26.04.2004 registered in the Office of Triplicane Sub Registrar Office and to pay a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- towards compensation for damages, pain and sufferings of the complainant.

1. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

                The complainant is having an account bearing No.528402010001430 with the opposite party.  The complainant had availed a Housing loan from the opposite party for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on 26.04.2004 under Property Loan account No.528406650057153 and for availing the property loan, the complainant had mortgaged his property which is at Triplicane, Chennai – 5.  At the time of mortgage, the complainant had given the original sale deed bearing No.656 of 2004 registered in the Triplicane SubRegistrar Office pertaining to the said property with the opposite party. The complainant submits that after availing the loan, the complainant had repaid the entire loan amount along with interest.  After receipt of the entire amount with interest, the opposite party had issued a letter on 13.10.2011 stating that the loan amount has been fully adjusted and no dues are pending from the complainant to the opposite party.  The complainant had approached the opposite party on 19.03.2012 for return of the parent document of sale deed bearing No.656 of 2004 pertaining to the property at Triplicane, the opposite party had informed to the complainant that they had lost the original documents in the bank itself and the bank will get the certified copy of the original and give it to the complainant, but the complainant had strongly opposed to receive the certified copy of the documents.   If the complainant lost the original parent documents, the value of the property will be reduced and there will be insecurity in respect of any claim can be made by any other 3^rd parties. Hence the complainant issued a notice on 13.10.2013 calling upon the opposite party to return the original parent documents failing which suitable legal action will be initiated.  The opposite party had received the said notice, but failed to issue any reply for the same.  Hence this complaint is filed.

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by the opposite party is as follows:

                The opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The opposite party submits that  the complainant had mortgaged his property and availed a Housing loan for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on 26.04.2004 with them.    The complainant has failed to create equitable mortgage over the property with his original sale deed which was registered as Document No.656 of 2004 dated:26.04.2004, after he availed housing loan for the property.  The complainant has not produced any kind of acknowledgement received from the opposite party at the time of alleged deposit of the said Original sale deed  or any other proof to show that he has deposited the said Original sale deed with the opposite party.  Further the copy of pass book of the complainant which alone is not an evidence to prove that the original document pertaining to his property is deposited with the opposite party.  A certificate issued by the opposite party for closure of the housing loan which alone does not meant to have received the original sale deed.

3.  The opposite party has wrote a letter to the concerned Sub Registrar’s Office dated:18.08.2017 for furnishing the details of person who collected the original sale deed from them after registration of the said deed Document No.656 of 2004, dated:26.04.2004 to know the exact truth to prove the case on behalf of the opposite party.  The opposite party submits that the legal notice dated:17.10.2013 calling upon the opposite party to surrender the original document which is not available in the hand of the  opposite party, for which, the complainant has to prove with an acknowledgement received from the opposite party for having deposited the title deeds.  The complainant failed to furnish the name of the Branch Manager or any authorized official of the Bank to whom the said title deed was handed over.    There is no cause of action in the complaint.  Further, the complainant has failed to prove a prima facie case against the opposite party and has failed to substantiate his claim with necessary documents.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.

4.   In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite party filed and Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 marked on the side of the opposite party and also Ex.C1 is marked.

5.      The point for consideration before this Forum is:

1. Whether the complainant  is entitled to get return the original sale deed bearing document bearing  No.656 of 2004 dated:26.04.204  registered in the office of the Sub Register, Triplicane as prayed for?

2. Whether the complainant  is entitled to a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- towards compensation for damages, pain and suffering etc. as prayed for with cost.?

6.      On Point:

Heard both sides. Perused the records namely complaint, written version, proof affidavits, documents, written arguments etc.   The learned Counsel for the complainant contended that, the complainant had availed a housing loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the opposite party on 26.04.2004  and created an equitable mortgage by depositing the original sale deed bearing document No.656 of 2004 registered in the Sub Registrar Office, Triplicane, Chennai–5 is admitted. The learned Counsel for the complainant further contended that, the complainant had repaid the entire loan amount with interest.  The opposite party also issued a letter dated: 13.10.2011 stating that the entire loan was cleared and there is no due as per Ex.A2. and Ex.B2.  The learned Counsel  further contended that the complainant had  approached the opposite party  for return of the original documents including  the registered sale deed no.656 of 2004 of the property.  The opposite party dragged the complainant for a long time and has not returned the original documents and admitted that the documents are found missing proves the deficiency in service.  Hence the complainant was constrained to issue legal notice as per Ex.A4 and filed this complaint for return of the documents with compensation. 

7.     The learned Counsel for the opposite party contended that, admittedly the complainant availed loan and paid the entire loan amount.  This opposite party also issued no due certificate.  While claiming the original title deed deposited by creating an equitable mortgage, this opposite party made a search throughout his bank and found missing.  Hence this opposite party requested the complainant to have the certified copy of the document duly attested by the bank.  But there is no law prevailing for the bank to certify the duplicate or the attested copy of the document to have its own originality.   Further the learned Counsel for the opposite party contended that the compensation claimed is exorbitant.  As per the compensation policy maximum of Rs.10,000/- alone be granted as follows:

“ In the event of loss of title deeds to mortgage property at the hands of the Bank the compensation will cover out of pocket expenses for obtaining duplicate documents plus  a lump sum amount Rs.100/- per day beyond 15 days subject to maximum Rs.10,000/- or as may be decided by the bank from time to time”.

But the opposite party has not explained whether such rule framed inconsonance with the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India.  Equally, in this case the opposite party took a stand that they have not received the original document and filed CMP 362/2017 with a prayer to issue of sub poena to Sub Registrar, Triplicane accordingly the sub poena also issued by this Forum.   The Sub Registrar, Triplicane also submitted Ex.C1 showing that the original registered sale deed was received by the opposite party bank Assistant Manager proves that the opposite party raised a false allegaiton.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite party shall search and find out the original sale deed bearing document No.656 of 2004 and return to the complainant within one month  failing which,  the opposite party shall pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- with cost of Rs.5,000/-.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.  The  opposite party is directed to search and find out the original sale deed bearing document No.656 of 2004 dated:26.04.2004 and  return to the complainant within one month, failing which, the opposite party shall pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/-  (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.

The aboveamounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 23^rd day of April 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                       PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

		Copy of Bank Pass book
		Copy of Certificate issued by Union Bank
		Copy of Letter sent by the complainant
		Copy of Legal notice sent by the complainant

 

OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:  

Ex.B1	26.04.2004	Copy of Sale Deed in Document No.656 of 2004
Ex.B2	13.10.2011	Copy of Closure certificate issued by the opposite party
Ex.B3	18.08.2017	Copy of Letter addressed to the Sub Registrar, Triplicane

 

Court Exhibits:

Ex.C1

20.05.2004

Copy of Document produced by the Sub-Registrar, Triplicane

 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                       PRESIDENT