BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B. Com., LL.B., Member
Wednesday the 29th day of June, 2005
CD.No 31/2005
Mariyani Kare Basappa, S/o. M.Sivalingappa,
H.No. 6/279, Photo Studio, Yemmiganur, Kurnool Dist.
. . . Complainant
-Vs-
The Secretary,
The Yemmiganur Co-Op. Town Bank Ltd, Yemmiganur.
. . . Opposite party
This complaint coming on 23.06.2005 for arguments in the presence of Sri K.Kanteppa Advocate for complainant and Advocate for opposite party and stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following.
O R D E R
(As per Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy Hon’ble Member)
1. This consumer disputes case of the complainant is filed under C.P. Act, 1986 seeking a direction on the opposite party to pay him Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and costs of this case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant case are that the complainant’s father by name Mariyani Shivalingappa borrowed a loan of Rs. 20,000/- on 7.4.1997 from the opposite party bank and mortgaged his house bearing No. 6/150 (old) 6/279 (new). At the time of registration of mortgage the original house document is handover to the opposite party bank. The complainant’s father died on 5.2.2000. Due to financial problems the complainant not paid loan amount to the opposite party. On 17.9.2004 the complainant paid entire loan amount in one time settlement scheme. The opposite party also issued loan Clearance certificate on 11.10.2004 has having paid entire loan amount under account No. 9204/84-1 against mortgage of his house property. The complainant asked the opposite party to return his original document pertaining to the said mortgaged house as he paid entire loan amount. The opposite party inform to the complainant the document is not traced by them. The same will be returned within one week. After one week the complainant approached the opposite party and requested to return his house documents. The opposite party not returned on postponing every time. Again the complainant addressed a letter to the Joint Collector / personal incharge, The Yemmiganur Co.Op Town Bank, Yemmiganur on 4.11.2004 and sent through city courier service under copy to the opposite party. But no reply from the both parties. The complainant disappointed by the activities of the opposite party and got issued legal notice to him on 27.11.2004 under copy to the personal incharge/ Joint Collector, the Yemmiganur Co-Op Town Bank, requesting them to return of is house Original document. The opposite party sent reply notice on 5.12.2004 stating that the opposite party bank is enable to return the original title deed as it is misplaced. If any customer mortgaged property and borrowed loan and after settlement of loan amount together with interest, the bank should bound to return his original document. It is the duty of the bank to keep all the documents in its custody and they may be returned to the party after clearing of entire loan amount. In this case the opposite party not fulfilled its duties due to this negligence act of opposite party the complainant suffered financially and mentally. Hence the complainant is claiming Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and costs from the opposite party towards deficiency of service in not returning the original title deed of the complainant after clearance of loan amount in the bank.
3. The complainant in support of its case place reliance on the following documents Viz. (1) letter dt 4.11.2004 of the complainant to the joint Collector/Person incharge under copy to the opposite party (2) legal notice dt Nil issued by the complainant’s counsel to the opposite party under copy to the person incharge / Joint Collector, Kurnool (3) the postal receipt in proof of sending the legal notice to the opposite party (4) The postal receipt in proof of sending the legal notice to the person incharge / Joint Collector, Kurnool (5) the acknowledgement of opposite party for the legal notice issued by complainant’s counsel (6) the acknowledgement of person incharge / Joint Collector, Kurnool for the said legal notice issued by complainant’s counsel (7) the reply notice issued by the opposite party’s counsel to the complainant’s counsel dt 5.12.2004, besides to his sworn affidavit in reiteration of his complaint averments interrogatories and the above documents are marked as Ex A.1 to A.7 for its appreciation in this case.
4. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant, the opposite party appears before this Forum through its counsel and filed written version, sworn affidavit and written arguments and admitted all the material averments made in the complaint.
5. The written version averments and in reiteration of it the sworn affidavit of the opposite party submits that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts and as it is true that the complaint’s father late Shivalingappa had obtained the loan of Rs. 20,000/- on 7.4.1997 by pledging the original title deed pertains to his house and also true that the said loan has been fully discharged and the opposite bank also issued the loan clearance certificate to the complainant. The complainant can always obtain any number of certified copies from the sub-registrar office. It is submitted the opposite party bank is ready to secure one such copy from the sub-registrar office for the benefit of complainant. The present secretary is only incharge secretary of opposite party bank. At the time of loan disbursement to the customers, he was not secretary and the present secretary do not know what are the documents filed by the complainant at that time, by late Shivalingappa, father of the complainant who had borrowed the loan from the opposite party bank on many number of times during 1987, 1996, 1997 on the same property under loan No.s .42/83, 82/17, 83/43 and 84/1 by closing the earlier loan. There are 1212 number of loan accounts files are outstanding with the opposite party bank and this type of loans of which this is one loan file. The opposite party Bank also made efforts to trace out the original title deed of the complainant. The bank had not so far Come-across this type of mistake in its 59 years of existence and more over the opposite party bank as given good services to the customers, borrowers and depositors of not only Yemmiganur town but also the adjoining Villages, hence it is submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party bank and the opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant and further submits that this Forum has no jurisdiction as the opposite party Bank is Co-Op bank and this case of the complainant is liable to be dismissed in the interest of justice.
6. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party bank in not returning the original title deed even after discharging the entire loan amount with interest which was taken by the complainant by mortgaging the house and of his entitleness to the reliefs claimed?:-
7. The Ex A.1 is the letter dt 4.11.2004 addressed to the person incharge / Joint Collector, Kurnool under copy to the opposite party requesting them as a complainant’s father has borrowed Rs. 20,000/- (G.No. 9134) by mortgaging his house with its original title deed after death of complainant’s father he paid to the entire loan amount in one time settlement scheme and obtained loan clearance certificate and requested them to return the said original title deeds. The opposite party bank promised to return original title deeds after the clearance of the entire loan amount but the opposite party bank not returned the same so fat and hence requested the person incharge/Joint Collector, Kurnool to see that the said original title deeds of the mortgaged property i.e house be returned immediately. The Ex A.2 is the legal notice dt Nil issued by the complainant’s counsel to the opposite party bank by giving all details of mortgaged property i.e house and requested him to return all the original documents and sale deed pertaining to house No. 6/105 ( Old ), 6/279 (new ) in loan No. 9204/84-1 dt 7.4.1997 which was in the name of late M. Shivalingappa, complainant’s father as the complainant paid the entire loan amount in one time settlement scheme on 17.9.2004 and the opposite party also issued the said loan clearance certificate on 11.10.2004. The Ex A.3 and A.4 are the postal receipts of the A.2 which are sent to the opposite party bank and person incharge / Joint Collector, Kurnool respectively. The Ex A.5 and Ex .6 are the acknowledgements of Ex A.2 by the person incharge / Joint Collector, Kurnool and opposite party bank respectively. The Ex A.7 is the reply notice dt 5.12.2004 by opposite party’s counsel to the complainant counsel and admitted all the facts of the complainant case and also admitted that unfortunately the opposite party unable to return the original title deed as it is misplaced (para3) and requested the complainant’s counsel to advise his client i.e the complainant to bear the inconvenience and the opposite party bank under takes to return the original tile deed as an when it is traced out.
8. In the present case as it is clear from the Ex. A1 to Ex.A.7 the opposite party bank has given loan to the complainant’s father by mortgaging his house by taking its original title deeds which was in vogue and also from time immemorial which was practice of any Nationalised Banks- Commercial Banks- Co-Operative town banks – Co-Op Urban banks- Private banks, infact even any of commercial institutions. After discharging entire loan amount with interest or in one time settlement scheme which was in vogue at the time of discharge of the said loan of complainant’s father by the complainant. After due discharge and issuing of entire loan mount clearance certificate. The banks which mortgage the properties of customers by taking (depositing) original title deeds has to return the same which are vital documents to obtain any loan what so ever from any banks, without which the banks could not entertain any such loan applications. The opposite party bank in its written version (Para 3), sworn affidavit (para3) and written arguments have admitted the fact that the original title deed was misplaced and could not be traced out as there are heavy transaction in the opposite party’s bank and could not be returned back to the complainant but the opposite party bank has put forth its argument and as a free advise that the complainant can always obtain any number of certified copies from the Sub-registrar office. Even though it is fact and not only the complainant or any other person interested in the said property can obtain certified copies/ public copies from the sub registrar of assurances. This certified copies cannot substitute in any way in what so manner with original which is a vital document for the purpose of obtaining any type of loan from any banks (Nationalized, Commercial, Private, Co-Op Town, Urbon). Hence the opposite party bank could not escape the liability of its conduct of mis-placing the said original title deed which was evidently admitted by the opposite party bank and it is certainly amounts to the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party bank and liable to pay to the complainant the compensation of Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 500/- as costs.
9. Therefore, in the result the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party bank to pay to the complainant the compensation of Rs. 15,000/- and Rs.500/- as costs within a month of the receipt of this order, in default the opposite party bank is liable to pay the awarded amount with 12% interest from the date of the said default till realization.
Dictation to the Stenographer Typed to the Dictation corrected by us pronounced in the Open Court this the 29th day of June, 2005
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant For the opposite party
-Nil- -Nil-
List of Exhibits Marked
For the complainant For the opposite party
Ex A.1 Letter dt 4.11.2004 of - Nil-
Complainant to the Joint Collector,
Kurnool.
Ex A.2 Legal notice of the complainant
to the opposite party.
Ex A.3 Postal receipts.
Ex A.4 Postal receipts.
Ex A.5 Acknowledgement.
Ex A.6 Acknowledgement.
Ex A.7 Reply notice dt 5.12.2004
By opposite party’s counsel to the
Complainant’s counsel.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
