IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 17th day of June, 2014.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member-I)
Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member-II)
C.C. No. 22/2014 (Filed on 13.02.2014)
Between:
Smt. T.K. Ponnamma,
Ottathenguvilayil Veedu,
Thannithodu P.O.,
Pathanamthitta – 689 699. … Complainant.
(By Adv. P.R. Shibu)
And:
Secretary,
Thannithodu Service Co-operative Bank-
Ltd. No. Q-364, Thannithodu P.O.,
Pathanamthitta – 689 699. … Opposite party.
(By Adv. C.N. Rajendran)
ORDER
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member-I):
The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite party for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. Brief facts of the case is as follows: Complainant Smt. T.K. Ponnamma is a widow and a patient. Opposite party is a Service Co-operative Bank and the complainant is a member of the opposite party. On 01.07.2009, complainant availed a loan of Rs. 1 lakh from the opposite party bank by pledging her title deed. She defaulted her loan payment and on getting a registered notice from the opposite party, complainant approached the opposite party bank and remitted the balance outstanding amount of Rs. 69,856/- as full and final settlement including Arbitration charge. On the same day, she submitted an application before the bank authorities for getting back her title deed as her loan is closed. But the opposite party bank instead of giving the title deed, issued a notice to the complainant demanding her to remit the outstanding amount of Rs. 18,317/- along with its interest from 22.08.2013. Without taking Arbitration proceedings, opposite party bank charged the Arbitration cost from the complainant. Complainant remitted the entire loan amount by taking loan from other financial institutions by giving more interest. Complainant submitted a complaint before the Joint Registrar regarding this matter. But there is no reply from them. The non-issuance of the title deed by the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant. Hence this complaint for getting back the pledged title deed along with compensation of Rs. 50,000/-.
3. Opposite party bank entered appearance and filed version with the following contentions: Opposite party admitted the loan transaction with the complainant. But she defaulted in the payment, and the opposite party sent a registered notice to the complainant intimating about Arbitration proceedings. After getting the notice, complainant remitted Rs. 47,475/- towards principal amount, Rs. 21,631/- towards interest and Rs. 750/- towards arbitration proceedings. The allegation raised by the complainant that the opposite party collected Rs. 3,000/- towards arbitration case is false. Complainant’s outstanding loan amount is Rs. 18,317/- and its interest from 22.08.2013. As per Banking Law, only after closing the loan, a loanee is entitled to get the title deed. There is no deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party and complainant has not caused financial loss and mental agony due to any acts of the opposite party. With the above contentions, opposite party prays for directing the complainant to remit the outstanding dues Rs. 18,317/- along with its interest from 22.08.2013.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
5. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral testimony of PW1, DW1, Exts. A1 to A4 and Ext. B1. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.
6. The Point: Complainant’s case is that she had availed a loan of Rs. 1 lakh from the opposite party bank pledging her title deed. She defaulted the loan payment and the opposite party bank issued a notice intimating Arbitration proceedings. Then the complainant approached the opposite party bank and as per their direction she remitted Rs. 69,856/- as full and final settlement and on the same day itself she filed an application for getting back the pledged title deed. Thereafter, opposite party issued a notice to the complainant directing to remit the outstanding dues of Rs. 18,317/- with its interest. Even though the complainant remitted the entire amount, opposite party did not given back the pledged title deed. The above said act of the opposite party caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant and hence opposite party is liable to the complainant for the same.
7. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of her chief examination. On the basis of the proof affidavit, complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced are marked as Exts. A1 to A4. Ext. A1 is the loan pass book issued by the opposite party in the name of the complainant on 01.07.2009. Ext. A2 is the registered notice dated 12.08.2013 issued by the opposite party in the name of the complainant. Ext. A3 is the receipt No. 124168 for Rs. 69,856/- issued by the opposite party on 21.08.2013 to the complainant. Ext. A3(a) is the receipt No. 124169 for Rs. 500/- issued by the opposite party in the name of the complainant on 21.08.2013. Ext. A4 is the photocopy of the application form submitted by the complainant on 21.08.2013 before the opposite party bank.
8. On the other hand, the contention of the opposite party is that, complainant made default in the repayment of the loan. So they issued a notice on 12.08.2013. After getting the notice from the opposite party, complainant remitted Rs. 69,856/-, being the dues as on 21.08.2013. An amount of Rs. 18,317/- and its interest from 22.08.2013 is still outstanding. As per Banking Law, without remitting the entire loan amount and its interest, pledged document cannot be returned. So there is no deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party.
9. In order to prove the case of the opposite party bank, Secretary of the bank examined as DW1 and one document produced is marked as Ext. B1. Ext. B1 is the copy of the loan register of the opposite party bank in respect of the complainant’s loan.
10. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the available materials on record and found that the parties have no dispute with regard to the loan transaction and the deposit of the title deed in question. According to the complainant, the title deed deposited by her is not returned even though she had closed the loan account as per the direction of the opposite party bank by paying Rs. 69,856/-. But according to the opposite party, complainant has not remitted the entire amount and Rs. 18,317/- and its interest is still outstanding. The pledged document can be returned only after remitting the same.
11. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, the only question to be considered is whether the complainant had closed the loan account and she is entitled to get the pledged title deed? From Ext. A2 notice, it is seen that complainant’s dues is Rs. 90,159/- including principal amount of Rs.65,792/- . In the deposition of PW1, she clearly stated as follows:-“21.08.2013-ലോണ് അടക്കാന് 70,000/- രൂപയുമായി ബാങ്കില് ചെന്നു. 23.06.2011 മുതല് 21.08.2013 വരെയുള്ള മുതലും, പലിശയും ചേര്ത്ത് 69,856/-രൂപാ മാത്രമെ ബാങ്കില് അടച്ചുള്ളു. ഞാന് ടി തുക അടച്ച സമയം കുടിശ്ശിക ഉണ്ടെന്ന് ”. Opposite party/DW1 also admitted in chief examination that the complainant approached with Rs. 70,000/-. If her dues is Rs. 90,159/- why the opposite party collected Rs. 69,856/- only, though opposite party is aware that the complainant came with Rs. 70,000/-. The above said act of the opposite party is suspicious as the normal procedure of all banks is to credit the amount brought by the debtors if the account is not closing. Moreover, it is seen from Ext. A4 that the complainant had applied for the return of title deed on 21.08.2013 itself and the opposite party bank accepted the same. If the complainant’s loan is not closed why the opposite party accepted the complainant’s application and made the endorsement over the same to the effect of an acknowledgment as a banking institution is not bound to return the documents pledged without closing the loan.
12. Moreover, no notice was seen issued to the complainant after 21.08.2013 by the opposite party calling her to remit the balance amount or they have not given any reply for the complainant’s application for returning the document. Thus in all respect, opposite party failed to prove their specific case that the complainant’s loan account is not closed. Therefore, we find that the non-return of the pledged title deed by the opposite party bank is a clear deficiency in service and hence this complaint is allowable.
13. In the result, this complaint is allowed, thereby the opposite party is directed to return the title deed along with Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand five hundred only) as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to realize Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) from the opposite party with 10% interest per annum from today till the realization of the whole amount.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 17th day of June, 2014.
(Sd/-)
K.P. Padmasree,
(Member-I)
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-)
Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member-II) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : T.K. Ponnamma.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Loan pass book issued by the opposite party in the name of the complainant
on 01.07.2009.
A2 : Registered notice dated 12.08.2013 issued by the opposite party in the name
of the complainant.
A3 : Receipt No. 124168 for Rs. 69,856/- issued by the opposite party on
21.08.2013 to the complainant.
A3(a) : Receipt No. 124169 for Rs. 500/- issued by the opposite party in the name of
the complainant on 21.08.2013.
A4 : Photocopy of the application form 21.08.2013 submitted by the complainant to
the opposite party bank.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:
DW1 : K.S. Omana.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:
B1 : Copy of the loan register of the opposite party bank in respect of the
complainant’s loan.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent
Copy to: (1) Smt. T.K. Ponnamma, Ottathenguvilayil Veedu,Thannithodu P.O.,
Pathanamthitta – 689 699. …
- The Secretary,Thannithodu Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No. Q-364,
Thannithodu P.O., Pathanamthitta – 689 699.
(3) Stock file.
