Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/110/2015

Mrs.R.Lalitha Rajagopal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Regional Manager, State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.Ajoy Kumar Gnanam

10 Aug 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 05.03.2015

                                                                          Date of Order : 10.08.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 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.110 /2015

DATED THIS FRIDAY THE 10^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018

                                 

Mrs. R. Lalitha Rajagopal,

W/o. Late K.P. Rajagopal,

New No.6 (Old No.19), 2^nd Main Road,

AVM Avenue,

Virugambakkam,

Chennai – 600 092.                                               .. Complainant.                                                 

 

        ..Versus..

 

1. The Regional Manager,

State Bank of India,

Region – I,

Regional Business Office,

No.86, Rajaji Salai,

Chennai – 600 001.

 

2.  The General Manager (NW-1),

State Bank of India,

Local Head Office,

No.16, College Lane,

Chennai – 600 006.                                          ..  Opposite parties.

          

Counsel for complainant           :  M/s. Ajoy Kumar Gnanam & another

Counsel for opposite parties    :  M/s. P.D. Audikesavalu & others

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to return the original Sale Deed dated:20.09.1972 and the Encumbrance Certificates Nos.1773 & 1387 dated:13.09.1971 & 03.07.1971 respectively, to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, pain and depression suffered by the complainant with cost to the complainant.

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

The complainant submits that her husband Mr. K.P. Rajagopal was an employee of the opposite party, obtained a housing loan of Rs.35,000/- in the year 1972 after depositing the Title Deed pertaining to house property.  The complainant’s husband availed an additional loan of Rs.1,18,000/- from the 2^nd opposite party branch in the year 1990 by creating relative Equitable Mortgage.  After the death of  Mr. K.P. Rajagopal, the balance EMIs was deducted from the family pension of the complainant and settled the loan in the year 2003.  The complainant further submits that even after the closure of the loan, the opposite parties has not returned the mortgaged documents related to the property.   The oral representation made by the complainant were not yielded any result.  Hence representation under Right to Information Act dated:08.11.2012 was issued.   The 1^st opposite party in his reply dated:15.12.2012 disposed the representation that the documents equitably mortgaged was not available with the opposite parties.   Immediately on 15.01.2013, the complainant sent a letter to the Appellate Authority requesting to return the mortgaged documents.  Thereafter, the 2^nd opposite party in his letter dated:15.02.2013 directed the 1^st opposite party to furnish the information to the complainant.  The 1^st opposite party by his letter dated:02.03.2013 pleaded apology.  The 1^st opposite party in his letter dated:07.03.2013 confirmed that the Sale Deed dated:20.09.1972 and the two Encumbrance Certificates were deposited to the 1^st opposite party and EM was created on 05.10.1972.  The complainant requested the opposite party to release the mortgaged documents.    But to her shock and surprise, on 31.08.2013, the 1^st opposite  party sent a reply stating that the documents are not traceable.  Hence the complainant issued notice dated:10.02.2015 for which, the opposite party has not sent any reply.    The complainant further submits that without the original document as per the prevailing rules the property cannot be sold.  The act of the opposite parties caused great mental agony.  Hence the complaint is filed.

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

The opposite parties specifically deny each and every allegations made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The opposite parties state that the complainant’s husband Mr. K.P. Rajagopal created Equitable Mortgage by deposit of titled deeds in favour of State bank of India as a collateral security for an advance by way of term loan.   Further the opposite parties state  that the fact of creation of Equitable Mortgage is evident from the entries made in the register maintained by the opposite parties.  The equitable mortgage has been discharged by the due repayment of loan.   The title deeds of the mortgaged property could be claimed by and returned only to the State Bank of India, Madras Circle Supervising Staff Co-operative Building Society Ltd.  The complainant claims that she is the wife of Mr. K.P. Rajagopal should be proved.  Further the opposite parties state that as per the letter dated:31.08.2013, it is duly informed to the complainant that the mortgaged documents were not traceable and as gesture of goodwill arrangements were made for obtaining duplicate copy from the Sub-Registrar Office.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  Hence the compliant is liable to be dismissed.

3. To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as her evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A13 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite parties filed and document Ex.B1 is filed and marked on the side of the opposite parties.

4.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant entitled to get return of the Sale Deed dated:20.09.1972 and the Encumbrance Certificates viz No.1773 & 1387 dated:13.09.1971 & 03.07.1971 respectively deposited towards housing loan as prayed for?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost as prayed for?

 

 

5.      On point:-

The opposite parties has not preferred to file any written arguments.   Heard both parties.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits, documents etc.  The complainant pleaded and contended that her husband Mr. K.P. Rajagopal was an employee of the opposite party, obtained a housing loan of Rs.35,000/- in the year 1972 after depositing the Title Deed pertaining to house property is admitted.  The complainant’s husband availed an additional loan of Rs.1,18,000/- from the 2^nd opposite party branch in the year 1990 by creating relative Equitable Mortgage.  After the death of Mr. K.P. Rajagopal, the balance EMIs was deducted from the family pension of the complainant and settled the loan in the year 2003.  The learned Counsel for the complainant further contended that even after the closure of the loan, the opposite parties has not returned the mortgaged documents related to the property.   The oral representation made by the complainant were not yielded.  Hence representation under Right to Information Act dated:08.11.2012 was issued as per Ex.A1.   The 1^st opposite party in his Ex.A2, reply dated:15.12.2012 disposed the representation that the documents equitably mortgaged was not available with the opposite parties.   Immediately on 15.01.2013, the complainant sent a letter to the Appellate Authority as per Ex.A3 requesting to return the mortgaged documents.  Thereafter, the 2^nd opposite party in his letter dated:15.02.2013 directed the 1^st opposite party to furnish the information to the complainant as per Ex.A4.  The 1^st opposite party by his letter dated:02.03.2013 pleaded apology as per Ex.A5.  The 1^st opposite party in his letter dated:07.03.2013 confirmed that the Sale Deed dated:20.09.1972 and the two Encumbrance Certificates were deposited to the 1^st opposite party and EMI was created on 05.10.1972 as per Ex.A6.  As per Ex.A7 & Ex.A8, the complainant  requested the opposite party to release the mortgaged documents.    But to her shock and surprise, on 31.08.2013, the 1^st opposite  party sent Ex.A9, reply stating that the documents are not traceable which amounts to deficiency in service.  Hence the complainant issued notice dated:10.02.2015 as per Ex.A11 for which, the opposite party has not sent any reply.  The learned Counsel for the complainant further contended that without the original document as per the prevailing rules the property cannot be sold.  Equally, in the absence of Original Title Deed, the prospective purchaser cannot come forward to deal with the property.  The complainant is also aged 76 years.  Due to the act of the opposite parties, the complainant is put to great hardship.  The complainant is claiming a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation with a direction to return the documents.

6.     The learned Counsel for the opposite parties would contend that admittedly, the complainant’s husband Mr. K.P. Rajagopal created Equitable Mortgage by deposit of titled deeds in favour of State bank of India as a collateral security for an advance by way of term loan.   But the opposite parties has not produced any document to prove such term loan.  On the other hand, the complainant pleaded and proved that the amount was borrowed towards housing loan as per Ex.A1 & Ex.A9.  Further the contention of the opposite parties is that the fact of creation of Equitable Mortgage is evident from the entries made in the register maintained by the opposite parties.  It is also admitted that the equitable mortgage has been discharged by due repayment of loan.   The title deeds of the mortgaged property could be claimed and returned only to the State Bank of India, Madras Circle Supervising Staff Co-operative Building Society Ltd.  The complainant claims that she is the wife of Mr. K.P. Rajagopal should be proved.   But on a careful perusal of records, it is very clear that the opposite parties collected EMIs from the family pension of the complainant and all the correspondence made by the complainant are absolutely silent regarding Legal Heir Certificate, raising such wild allegation at the fag end is motivated.   Further the contention of the opposite parties is that as per the letter dated:31.08.2013, it is duly informed to the complainant that the mortgaged documents were not traceable and as gesture of goodwill arrangements were made for obtaining duplicate copy from the Sub-Registrar Office.   But no iota of evidence filed before this Forum.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on a careful perusal of records, it is very clear that the opposite parties has not produced any document to prove the effective search for the return of the document which is very vital for all purposes related to the property.  Hence, this Forum is of the considered view the opposite parties shall search and find out the original documents and hand it over to the complainant within one month, and pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- with cost of Rs.10,000/-.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.  The  opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to search and find out the original sale deed dated:20.09.1972, Encumbrance Certificates Nos.1773 & 1387 dated:13.09.1971 & 03.07.1971 respectively and  return to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the order and the opposite parties shall pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) for mental agony with cost of Rs.10,000/-  (Rupees Ten thousand only) to the complainant.

The aboveamounts shall be payablewithin 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 10^th day of August 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1	08.11.2012	Copy of letter written under RTI Act by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party
Ex.A2	15.12.2012	Copy of reply sent by the 1st opposite party to the complainant
Ex.A3	15.01.2013	Copy of Appeal filed by the complainant before the 2nd opposite party
Ex.A4	15.02.2013	Order copy passed by the 2nd opposite party
Ex.A5	02.03.2013	Copy of reply sent by the 1st opposite party to the complainant
Ex.A6	07.03.2013	Copy of reply sent by the 1st opposite party to the complainant
Ex.A7	19.03.2013	Copy of letter for release of mortgaged documents sent by the complainant
Ex.A8	31.07.2013	Copy of letter for release of mortgaged documents sent by the complainant
Ex.A9	31.08.2013	Copy of reply sent by the 1st opposite party to the complainant
Ex.A10	19.03.2014	Copy of letter for release of mortgaged documents sent by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party
Ex.A11	10.02.2015	Copy of legal notice sent to the opposite parties
Ex.A12	11.02.2015	Copy of postal track receipt of the above notice evidencing the acknowledgement by the 1st opposite party
Ex.A13	11.02.2015	Copy of postal track receipt of the above notice evidencing the acknowledgement by the 2nd opposite party

 

OPPOSITE  PARTIES SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.B1

05.10.1972

Copy of extract from the Register of Equitable Mortgage

 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT