In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 289/2011.
1) Mr. Lokes Chandra Sarkar,
Vivekananda Road, Bye Lane-II,
P.O. Sonarpur, Dist. South 24 parganas. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) United Commercial Bank,
A Govt. of India Undertaking, Head Office,
10, B.T.M. Sarani, Kolkata-700001.
2) The General Manager,
United Commercial Bank, Head Office,
Retail Banking Department, 2nd Floor,
10, B.T.M. Sarani, Kolkata-1.
3) The Deputy General Manager,
United Commercial Bank, Head Office,
Retail Banking Department, 2nd Floor,
10, B.T.M. Sarani, Kolkata-1.
4) The Senior Manager, United Commercial Bank,
Southern Avenue Branch,56, Southern Avenue,
Kolkata-29, P.S. Tollygunge. ---------- Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Order No. 20 Dated 18-07-2013.
The case of the complainant in short is that complainant while in service as an employee of and under the o.p. no.1, being desirous of obtaining house building loan assistance from the o.p. bank, viz. his employer, since it has been his ardent wish and desire to avail of the same through a genuine procedure and/or transaction so that he be not duped of his hard earned money by any means in these days of mushrooming cheats and fraudsters spread in the length and breadth of this country, applied for and got sanction of the loan amount of Rs.1.5 lacs in his favour from o.p. no.1, his employer, upon duly executing various documents put forth by o.p. no.1, acting through its Branch being o.p.no.4 herein to the complainant under HBL Loan Account no.07970610000106.
As part of the terms of sanction of the said loan by o.p. no.1 in favour of the complainant, the complainant was interalia required to secure the repayment of the said loan to o.p. no.1 by depositing as and by way of mortgage by deposit of title deed his original title deed in favour of the o.p. no.1 which the complainant duly complied with.
Complainant accordingly submitted under the cover of his letter dt.27.6.03 the title deed in original being the deed no.2512 for the year 1990, which was registered before the registering authority in respect of the land acquired by the complainant, the receipt whereof has also been duly acknowledged under the seal and signature of the receiving o.p. branch being o.p. no.4.
The principal amount of the said loan along with interests thereon being fully refunded to the satisfaction of the o.ps. and a certificate of no dues in the aforesaid loan account having been secured from the o.p. no.4, wherein the said loan account was opened and wherefrom the loan was disbursed and submitted vide certificate dt.15.12.09, the complainant requested for return of the aforesaid title deed from o.p. no.4 followed by his requisition letter dt.4.1.10.
Complainant states and submits that the act and conduct of o.p. is not questionable but also deplorable, terribly affecting the rights and interests of the complainant who has duly complied with all the requirements of the o.ps. and has also dutifully and diligently liquidated his aforesaid loan account fully as aforesaid to the satisfaction of he o.ps. which prompted them to issue the No Objection Certificate as aforesaid. Hence the case was filed by the complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.
O.ps. had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case. Ld. lawyer of o.ps. in the course of argument submitted that the case has got no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Decision with reasons:-
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. We have also gone through the written version filed by o.p. nos.1 to 4. We find from the materials on record that complainant made payment of entire loan amount and o.ps. issued ‘no due certificate’ in favour of the complainant, but o.ps. did not return the title deed of the complainant which was deposited with o.ps. at the time of grant of loan amount. It is admitted position that complainant was an employee of the o.ps. and it has been alleged by o.ps. that complainant took away the registration slip, but from the record we find that o.ps. lodged FIR for such loss of deed in question.
We are of the views that o.ps. cannot shirk off their responsibility in this regard. So we find that o.ps. had sufficient deficiency being service provider to their consumer / complainant and complainant is entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is allowed on contest with cost against the o.ps. O.ps. are jointly and/or severally directed to issue a certificate to the effect that the deed in question standing in the name of the complainant was lost from their custody and they lodged FIR to that effect and the said deed could not be recovered by police authorities which was deposited duly by the complainant at the time of sanction of the loan amount vide HBL A/C No.07970610000106 and are further directed to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty five thousand) only for tremendous harassment and mental agony caused to the complainant and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
