Sri. K. Ramachandra, MemberORDER DELIVERED BY SMT. ASHA SHETTY, PRESIDENT:
1. The facts of the complaint in brief are as follows:
This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties claiming certain reliefs. Complaint is admitted on 03.01.2008.
The Complainant No.1 is a whole sale and retail flower merchant of Mangalore, having 6 flower shops and he is doing flower business through his shops. The Complainant No.2 is the wife of the Complainant No.1. Opposite Party No.1 is the Branch Manager of the Federal Bank, Mangalore, and Opposite Party No.2 is its Chief Executive Officer.
The Complainants submitted that, the Complainant No.1 being flower vendor availed a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- on 25.3.2003 from Opposite Party No.1 and Complainant No.2 was one of the co-obligant to the said advance. The Complainant No.2 had deposited the title deeds of the said property with the Opposite Party No.1 at his office as security to the said loan, which was returnable as soon as the loan liability was discharged.
And it is further submitted that, since the Complainant failed to pay the amount, the Opposite Party filed a recovery suit in O.S.No.20/2005 against the Complainants in the court of the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dvn.), Mangalore, which was decreed on 1.8.2006 against the Complainants. Thereafter, the Complainant had repaid the entire decreetal amount plus interest with cost on 8.3.2007. Thereafter, the Complainant No.1 requested the Opposite Party No.1 to return the Original Title Deeds of the property deposited with the said branch. The Opposite Party No.1 assured to return the said documents within 10 to 15 days but the Opposite Party No.1 failed to return the same till this date amounts to deficiency in service.
The Complainants submitted that, Complainant No.1 is carrying on the above business of purchase and sale of flowers at a large scale through several shops and outlets, he requires huge funds. But because of the non return of title deeds the Complainant suffered financial loss and hardship and hence the above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction to the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 to return the original documents of their house property and also pay a consolidated minimum damage of Rs.1,15,000/- and cost of the litigation expenses.
2. Version notice served to the Opposite Parties. Opposite Parties appeared through their counsel and filed version. Admitted that, the Complainant has availed a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- on 25.3.2003 from Opposite Party No.1 and Complainant No.2 was one of the co-obligants and on 25.3.2003, the Complainant No.2 deposited the original title deeds of the residential property in her name and also it is admitted that, Opposite Party filed a recovery suit in O.S.No.20/2005 against the Complainant in the court of the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dvn.), Mangalore, and the case was decreed on 1.8.2006.
The Opposite Parties submitted that, as per the instructions from the Opposite Party Bank, immediately on 9.3.2007, the counsel for the Opposite Parties have applied for the document which was filed in O.S.No.20/2005 and which was marked as Ex.P5 and again on 20.6.2007 filed fresh application and on 15.11.2007 the original title deeds received by the counsel. And contended that there was no delay on the part of the Opposite Parties and since the Complainant who has not turned up to collect the documents, the documents produced before this Forum along with the version and contended that there is no deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.
3. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
4. In support of the complaint, the Complainant– Sri S.K.Ibrahim (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on him and Ex.C1 to C12 as listed in the annexure. One P.Jithendranath, Senior Manager of Opposite Party No.1 (RW1) filed affidavit and served the interrogatories and Ex.R1 to R3 as listed in the annexure. Complainant produced notes of arguments.
We have heard arguments, perused the pleadings, documents and evidence placed on record. We answer the points are as follows:
REASONS
5. POINTS NO. (i) to (iii):
It is undisputed fact that, the Complainants availed a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- on 25.3.2003 from Opposite Party No.1 and the Complainant No.2 was one of the co-obligant for the said advance on the said date. That the Complainant No.2 deposited original title deeds of her residential property with the Opposite Party bank as a security. And also it is not disputed that, the Opposite Party filed a recovery suit against the Complainants in O.S.No.20/2005 in the court of the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Div.) Mangalore, which was decreed on 1.8.2006 (asper Ex.C1).
Now the point for consideration is that, whether the Complainant repaid the entire decretal amount due to the bank and the bank has returned the title deeds after the closure of the account in time? In order to prove the case of the Complainant produced Ex.C1 to C12 as listed in the annexure. Wherein, the Ex.C7 is the certificate dated 8.3.2007 issued by the Opposite Party bank proved that the Complainants settled their liabilities and as on date no liability is outstanding. It is a settled position of law that, once the liability is closed, it is the duty of the Opposite Party bank to return the Original Title Deeds to the Complainant immediately.
In the present case, admittedly the Opposite Parties filed a recovery suit against the Complainant in O.S. No.20/2005 and naturally the title deeds as to be produced before the court. It is noticed that, on 9.3.2007 i.e. very next of the settlement of dues, the counsel for the Opposite Party bank applied for a certified copy (as per Ex.R3) and subsequently the said application was not pressed by the counsel of the Opposite Party bank, but the reasons for not pressing the copy application is not forthcoming. However, after substituting the certified copies the counsel for the Opposite Party Bank obtained the original documents on 15.11.2007. We find that, the Opposite Party bank should have returned the title deeds atleast after receipt of the documents from the counsel.
The stand taken by the Opposite Party bank is that, the Complainant is not turned up to receive the title deeds appears to be perverse because it is duty of the Opposite Party bank to return the title deeds as soon as the liability is closed. But in the present case, the Opposite Party bank ought to have returned the documents atleast after receipt of the original title deeds obtained from the court. In the instant case, the Opposite Party bank miserably failed to return the title deeds till this date amounts to deficiency in service.
In a case Doson Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. and others versus United Bank of India and Another, National Commission held that:
“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1) (g), 21 – Banking services – Deficiency in service – Documents of title kept as security not returned – Whole Bank amount refunded – Complaint dismissed by Forum – State Commission held deficiency in service on part of Bank proved, but awarded no compensation – Complainants trying hard to get title documents back for availing loan to complete building construction – Delay in construction escalated cost – Complainant entitled to compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 12%.”
Similarly in the present case it is proved that there is a gross negligence on the part of the Opposite Party bank may be at this stage we need not, however, go in to the question of loss but on the face of it there was gross deficiency in service on the part of the bank after having received the whole amount from the Complainant’s and also receiving original title deeds deposited before the courts by the counsel, there was no reason for the bank hold on to the title deeds for such a long period. In the present case, Complainant No.1 being a business man the financial requirements always expected and we cannot ignore this aspect. In this particular case, the bank failed in its duty to returned the documents within reasonable time.
In view of the aforesaid discussions, by considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint. Since the Opposite Party bank already deposited the original title deeds before the Forum there is no question of directing the Opposite Party bank to return the title deeds. But the Opposite Party bank is hereby directed to return all other connected documents if any left out by the Complainant while depositing the title deeds and we hereby award Rs.3,000/- as compensation and also award Rs.1,000/- to the Complainant by way of litigation expenses. The compliance shall be made within 30 days from the receipt of the above said order.
6. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is allowed. Since the Opposite Party bank already deposited the original title deeds before the Forum there is no question of directing the Opposite Party bank to return the title deeds. But the Opposite Party bank is hereby directed to return all other connected documents if any left out by the Complainant while depositing the title deeds and we hereby award Rs.3,000/- as compensation and also award Rs.1,000/- to the Complainant by way of litigation expenses. The compliance shall be made within 30 days from the receipt of the above said order.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties free of costs and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 14th day of August 2008.)
PRESIDENT
(SMT. ASHA SHETTY)
MEMBER MEMBER
(SMT.SULOCHANA V.RAO) (SRI. K.RAMACHANDRA)
APPENDIX
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainants:
CW1 – Sri S.K.Ibrahim.
Documents marked on behalf of the Complainants:
Ex.C1: 1.8.2006: Judgment and order in O.S.No.20/2005
filed by the Opposite Party 1 against the
Complainants in the court of Prl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.)
at Mangalore.
Ex.C2: 1.8.2006: Preliminary decree in O.S.No.20/2005
stated under item No.1 above.
Ex.C3: 25.11.2006: Cash receipt issued to Complainant
No.1 by Opposite Party No.1 for Rs.1,00,000/-
Ex.C4: 29.1.2007: Cash receipt issued to Complainant No.1
by Opposite Party No.1 for Rs.1,00,000/-.
Ex.C5: 28.2.2007: Cash receipt issued to Complainant
No.12 by Opposite Party No.1 for Rs.50,000/-.
Ex.C6: 8.3.2007: Cash receipt issued to Complainant No.1
by Opposite Party No.1 for Rs.3,61,600/-.
Ex.C7: 8.3.2007: Declaration letter by Opposite Party No.1
to the effect that the dues of the Complainant are
settled and that there is no liability of Complainants
to the Opposite Party bank.
Ex.C8: 16.8.2007: Lawyer’s Notice got issued by the
Complainants to Opposite PartyNo.1 and Opposite
Party No.2 demanding the return of original title
deeds.
Ex.C9 & C10: Postal Acknowledgements.
Ex.C11: 3.11.2005: Purchaser’s copy of a Sale Agreement.
Ex.C12: 14.11.2007: Photo copy of the R.C. of the Ford Car
bearing Regd. No.K.A.19 B 1983.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
RW-1: Mr.P.Jithendranath. Senior Manager, Federal Bank.
Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
Ex.R1: Certified copy of the Deposition of Mr.Parameshwar
Nair, Senior Manager in O.S.No.20/2005 on the file
of Civil Judge (Sr.Div.) Mangalore.
Ex.R2: Order Sheet in O.S.No.20/2005.
Ex R3: Copy Application (2 in No.s)
Ex R4: 5.6.1996: Original Registered Sale Deed.
Dated:14.08.2008 PRESIDENT
31.07.2008:
ORDER
The complaint is allowed. The Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 hereby are jointly and severally hereby directed to refund the entire sale price of Rs.22,990/- to the Complainant by taking back the T.V. set and also the Complainant is directed to return the Standby set to the Opposite Party if provided. And further Rs.1,000/- awarded as litigation expenses. The above said amount shall be payable to the Complainant within 30 days from the receipt of the above said order.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties free of costs and file shall be consigned to record room.
PRESIDENT
(SMT. ASHA SHETTY)
MEMBER MEMBER
(SMT.SULOCHANA V.RAO) (SRI. K.RAMACHANDRA)
