Date of Filing : 28.11.2022
Date of Disposal: 25.04.2023
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVALLUR
BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law) .…. PRESIDENT
THIRU. P.VINODH KUMAR., B.Sc. B.L., ......MEMBER-I
THIRU.P.MURUGAN,.MCom., ICWA(Inter)., B.L., ....MEMBER-II
CC. No.187/2022
THIS TUESDAY, THE 25th DAY OF APRIL 2023
Mr.D.Arumugam,
S/o.Dharmalingam,
No.883/9, Rajaji Street, Pakkam Village,
Thiruvallur District. .........Complainant.
//Vs//
The Manager,
UCO Bank, Pakkam Branch,
No.331, Venkatesapuram,
Pakkam Post,
Thiruvallur Taluk & District 602 024. ...Opposite party.
Counsel for the complainants : Mr.P.Senthil Kumar, Advocate.
Counsel for the opposite party : M/s.A.N.Annamalai, Advocate.
This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 03.04.2023 in the presence of Mr.P.Senthil Kumar counsel for complainant and M/s.A.N.Annamalai counsel for the opposite party and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides, this Commission delivered the following:
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT.
This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service in not returning the original document entrusted with them along with a prayer to direct the opposite party to return the original document No.3242/1993 dated 06.09.1993 to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.
Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-
The complainant approached the opposite party bank for availing kisan credit card loan and the Manager of the opposite party bank insisted him to submit original land document. The complainant agreed to deposit Xerox copy of documents with the bank. But the bank officials insisted the complainant to produce original document then for sanctioning of the loan. By the compulsion of the bank officials the complainant and his son went to bank and deposited the original document No.3242/1993 dated 06.09.1993 and availed the loan amount of Rs.1,08,000/-. On 12.07.2022 he approached the UCO Bank , Pakkam Branch to settle the loan amount at once along with interest and demanded with the bank officials to return the original document. The bank officials stated that unless the complainant pay the entire loan they cannot return the original document. Thereafter the complainant paid the entire KCC loan to the bank and approached the officers to return the original document. But the officer concerned refused to return the original document to the complainant stating that no document was deposited with the bank. As the bank officer gave an evasive and negligent reply the present complaint was filed to direct the opposite party to return the original document No.3242/1993 dated 06.09.1993 and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.
Crux of the defence put forth by the opposite party:-
The opposite party filed version disputing the complaint allegations contending interalia that complainant availed kisan Credit Card Loan which was sanctioned on 03.03.2020 for an amount of Rs.1,80,000/-. The sanction advice had clearly stipulated that the security for the credit loan facility granted is only the hypothecation of crops raised by the borrowers in their land. As per the terms of Proforma sanction letter advice dated 03.03.2020 /Ref No.ADV/04/2020-21 in the Terms and conditions of Sanction in the security column it was mentioned as Security for the credit facility granted comprises the following:
Hypothecation of crops to be raised on borrowers’ land as indicated above”
Third party guarantee of Shri A.Sankar
The complainant’s son stood as Guarantor for the said loan and as per the loan sanction letter the opposite party had not received any documents from the complainant for the loan. The opposite party never asked nor demand the document of the complainant and for deposit of Title Deeds by way of Mortgage. Therefore the production of the original documents for sanctioning of the kisan credit card scheme does not arise. The complainant if at all had deposited the original document before bank subsequently memorandum of Title of Deposit (MOTD) would have been registered with concerned Sub-Registrar office. The complainant had failed to state the date and the person to whom the document was handed and to which branch. Thus they sought for the complaint to be dismissed.
The complainant had filed proof affidavit and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A17 were marked on their side. On the side of opposite party proof affidavit was filed and submitted documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 was marked on their side.
Points for consideration:-
Whether the complaint allegations against the opposite party in not returning the original document entrusted with them for availing Kisan Credit Card Loan has been successfully proved by the complainant and if so whether the same amounts to deficiency in service on their part?
If so to what relief the complainant is entitled?
Point No.1:-
On the side of the complainant the following documents were filed in support of the complaint allegations;
Sale Deed in favour of complainant dated 06.09.1993 was marked as Ex.A1;
Loan Sanction letter by UCO Bank dated 03.03.2020 was marked as Ex.A2;
Encumbrance Certificate from 01.01.1993 to 19.07.2022 dated 20.07.2022 was marked as Ex.A3;
Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party dated 11.08.2022 was marked as Ex.A4;
Acknowledgement card for proof of delivery was marked as Ex.A5;
Reply notice by opposite party to the complainant dated 29.08.2022 was marked as Ex.A6;
No dues Certificate from UCO Bank, Pakkam Branch dated 13.07.2022 was marked as Ex.A7;
On the side of the opposite party the following documents were filed in support of their defence;
RBI-Master circular- Kisan Credit Card (KCC) scheme dated 03.07.2017 was marked as Ex.B1;
Proforma of the sanction letter of Kisan cards to the complainant including Terms and conditions dated 03.03.2020 was marked as Ex.B2;
Statement by the Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Pakkam Branch was marked as Ex.B3;
Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party dated 11.08.2022 was marked as Ex.B4;
Heard both parties and we perused the pleadings and evidneces submitted by them.
The crux of the oral arguments adduced by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant is that the title document No.3243/1993 was entrusted with the opposite party for obtaining Kisan Credit Card Loan and when the entire loan was settled the opposite party did not return the original document which act amounted to deficiency in service and sought for a direction to the bank to return the document.
On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party contended that for the Kisan Credit Card Loan the Bank never requested for any collateral security for loan amount below Rs.2,00,000/- and the security for the said loan is only the hypothecation of the crops to be raised and a third party guaranty. Thus he submitted no document was submitted by the complainant at the time of availing loan and hence no question of returning the same arises and sought for the complaint to be dismissed.
On perusal of the pleadings and material evidences it is seen that Ex.A2 the Loan sanction letter provides the terms and conditions under which the“Security for the Credit Card facility“
“Security for the credit facility granted comprises the following:
Hypothecation of crops to be raised on borrowers’ land as indicated above”
Third party guarantee of Shri A.Sankar
and it is also seen that clause 2 requiring mortgage was strike out. Further if at all any original document was given as security in the Bank the same would have been registered as an Encumbrance by way of Memorandum of Title of Deposit(MOTD). The certificate of Encumbrance Ex.A3 shows that the property was transferred to the complainant and a part of the property was transferred to another person. However no mention was found that the property was given as collateral security to the opposite party. In such circumstances this commission was constrained to believe only the version of the opposite party that the said document was not entrusted to them. In such facts and circumstances when the complainant failed to prove that he had given the document to the opposite party at the time of availing loan by admissible evidence could not demand the opposite party to return the same and to allege deficiency in service on the part for not returning the document. Thus we answer the point accordingly in favour of the opposite party and as against the complainant holding that the complaint allegatins was not proved by the complainant.
Point No.2:-
As we have held above that the complainant had failed to prove that the opposite party had committed deficiency in service, he is not entitled any relief from the opposite party. Thus we answer the point accordingly.
In the result the complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 25th day of April 2023
-Sd- -Sd- -Sd-
MEMBER-II MEMBER –I PRESIDENT
List of document filed by the complainant:-
Ex.A1 06.09.1993 Sale Deed in favour of complainant. Xerox
Ex.A2 03.03.2020 Laon Sanction letter by UCO Bank. Xerox
Ex.A3 20.07.2022 Encumbrance certificate from 01.01.1993 to 19.07.2022. Xerox
Ex.A4 11.08.2022 Legal notice by complainant to opposite party. Xerox
Ex.A5 12.08.2022 Acknowledgement card. Xerox
Ex.A6 29.08.2022 Reply notice by opposite party to complainant. Xerox
Ex.A7 13.07.2022 No Due Certificate from UCO Bank, Pakkam Branch. Xerox
List of documents filed by the oppostie party:-
Ex.B1 03.07.2017 RBI-Master Circular – Kisan Credit Card (KCC) Scheme. Xerox
Ex.B2 03.03.2020 Proforma of the sanction letter of Kisan Cards to the complainant including terms and conditions. Xerox
Ex.B3 12.07.2022 Statement of Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Pakkam Branch. Xerox
Ex.B4 11.08.2022 Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party. Xerox
-Sd- -Sd- -Sd-
MEMBER-II MEMBER- I PRESIDENT
