Karnataka

Bellary

CC/129/2019

Smt P Chand Bee - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, State Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

B V Suresh

06 Mar 2021

ORDER

FILED ON:	22-10-2019
ORDER ON:	06-03-2021

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AT BELLARY

C.C.No.129 of 2019    

 

Present :-  

 

(1)  Shri.A.H.Malaghan. B.com. LLB.(Spl), …  Hon’ble President.

(2)  Shri.H.Veera Shekar. B.A. LLb.(Spl),    …  Hon’ble Member.

(3)  Smt. Marla Shashikala. B.com. (LLB)    .… Hon’ble L-Member.

 

 

DATED THIS THE 6^th DAY OF MARCH- 2021

 

COMPLAINANT/S   By-Shri.B.V.Suresh.   Advocate, Ballari.                                               //VS//	Smt. P.Chand Bee, W/o. P.Hussain Sab, Age: 64 Years, Agriculturist, R/o. Kolur Village, Ballari Tq & Dist.
RESPONDENT/S   By-Shri R.Mallikarjuna Goud, Advocate, Bellary.	The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, ADB  Branch, Station Road, Ballari.

// O R D E R //

By Hon’ble President Shri.A.H.Malaghan.

     This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite party U/Sec-12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.   

         2.   The complaint in brief is that, the complainant is the customer of the OP Bank bearing S.B. Account.No.30070222803 and she had availed K.C.C. Loan to the extent of Rs.90,000/- on 07-08-2006 with the OP by providing Collateral Security of Agricultural Lands bearing Sy.No.246A/1C2, 409B/1a, 409B/1b and 409B/3a of Kolur village, by executing Registered Mortgage Deed in the office of the Sub-registrar, Kurugodu under the document No.1696/2006-07.  The complainant has cleared the said loan amount in the year 2016 and after clearance of the debt, the OP had executed the cancellation of Mortgage Deed dt:08-09-2016 and after that, she approached the OP bank authorities for return of Original Records pertaining to the above said landed properties and she had issued a letter dt:08-12-2017 to OP bank for returning the Original Records, but after receiving the said letter, the OP never given any reply nor return any documents to the complainant.  The complainant has again approached the OP bank for return of Original Records, when the OP intimated that, the said Original Records were misplaced and written a letter dt:25-07-2019 to the Sub-registrar Ballari, for getting certified copies of the Original Records. Finally, the complainant has got issued a legal notice dt:23-08-2019, which was served to the OP bank, and OP bank had issued the reply notice dt:13-09-2019, as per the reply of the OP bank, she had approached the bank and she found that, the documents belongs to Certified Copies and she questioned about the said documents to the OP bank, they have stated, as it is Original documents and when the OP bank forced the complainant to sign the register of the bank register, but after getting the knowledge of the complainant he was refused the same, as the said documents are duplicate documents.  The OP’s bank has lost the original documents of the complainant and escapes their liability.   Since from the date of clearance of the loan, she has not having loans from the other banks, due to non producing the original documents and in this regard, she facing the financial problems and has borrowed huge amount from the private parties.  The said Original records had lost, which amounts to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OP Bank. Hence, she filed the complaint for the reliefs.

 

        3.    After service of notice by this Commission, the OP has appeared through his counsel and filed the written version in brief is as follows. 

          All the allegations made in the complaint, except those which are expressly admitted, are denied.  The complainant executed registered simple mortgage deed in favour of the OP banker on 07-08-2006 in document No.KBI/Mortgage/1696/2006-07 in the office of the Kurugodu Sub-registrar, in Kannad Language for having borrowed a Crop Loan amount of Rs.90,000/- from the OP banker.  The description of the lands are mentioned at page No.5 of the above said mortgage deed, but nowhere it is admitted or mentioned that, either the complainant or the OP given or received the original title deeds for the mortgaged lands.  The complainant never deposited the title deeds with the OP banker at the time of availing the loan amount.  Normally the banker will collect the original title deeds from the customer only in case of deposit of title deeds (DTD).  But, in the present case the complainant executed the aforesaid registered simple mortgage deed without depositing any title deeds and hence the question of collecting original documents by the banker does not arise.  Therefore, the particulars of original title deeds were not mentioned in the above said simple mortgage deed, because the OP banker not at all received any original documents from the complainant.  When the outstanding loan amount was repaid by the complainant, the OP banker immediately without causing delay executed registered cancellation deed or reconvience deed on 08-09-2016 in favour of the complainant vide Document No.3807/16-17, and thereby relieved the bank lien over the mortgaged properties.  On 15-07-2019 the complainant through her son submitted an application to the banker requesting to handover original documents.  On 23-08-2019 the complainant through advocate sent a legal notice to the OP bank asking to handover the original documents in respect of mortgaged lands.  On 13-09-2019 the OP banker issued reply by denying the allegations made out in the said legal notice.  But, in abundant caution informed the complainant that, the bank shall search any documents in available in the office.  It was also informed that, some documents traced by the bank staff and asked the complainant to collect the same pertaining to the mortgaged lands.  But, the complainant never came forward to collect the documents which are now produced from Doc.No.7 to 10 (original RTC forms of the lands) in the above case.  These documents are collected only for reference by the bankers, but never collected original title deeds from the complainant.  Finally, it was replied that, the complainant should not choose to initiate any proceedings against the banker.   On 25-07-2019 a letter was addressed to the Sub-registrar to grant certified copies to the complainant about the original title deeds at the cost and expenses of the banker as the complainant very rudely behaved in the bank, but with an intention to help the complainant, the said application was given to the Sub-registrar of Ballari for certified copies.  But, it does not mean that, the OP banker possessed the original title deeds of the lands.   The certified copies of the RTC forms collected at the time of lending loan amount for reference are herewith produced from Doc.No.7 to 10.  But, the complainant unnecessarily claiming original title deeds from the Op bank, which are not at all deposited with the banker.  There is a separate contract for collecting original documents, but not by way of simple mortgage deed.    The complainant setup a false claim against the banker with a malafide intention to grab illegal compensation which is not allowed under law.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP banker.  Hence, the OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.

   4.     In order to prove the case of the complainant, she has filed her evidence affidavit as PW-1 and has produced 07 documents which are noted as Annexure P-1 to Annexure P-7.  Annexure P-1 is the   ADB bank issued letter to the Sub register, Kurgodu dt:08-09-2016, Annexure P-2 is the Xerox copy of letter issued by the complainant to the bank, Annexure P-3 is the letter issued by the complainant’s son to the Bank, Annexure P-4 is the letter  from SBI to Sub Register, Ballari, Annexure P-5 is the office copy of legal notice, Annexure P-6 is the reply notice, Annexure P-7 is the land documents.

5.     On the other hand, the OP has filed the evidence affidavit as RW-1 and produced 07 documents which are noted as Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-7. Annexure R-1 is the self attested mortgage deed, Annexure R-2 is the self attested reconveyance deed, Annexure R-3 is the self attested letter, Annexure R-4 is the Xerox copy of legal notice,         Annexure R-5 is the reply notice, Annexure R-6 is the self attested letter from SBI to Sub Register and Annexure R-7 is the Xerox copy of self attested RORs.  

              

                6.     The points that arise for our consideration are;

1.	Whether the complainant proves that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in returning her original title of mortgaged land, as alleged in the complaint?
2	Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for in the complaint?
3.	What order?

 

                             

 

        

 

 

 

             

 

                  7.   The findings on the above points are as under.  

 

 

Point No.1:	In the Negative.
Point No.2:	In the Negative.
Point No.3	As per final order.

        

 

 

 

 

 // R  E A S O N S //

Point No.1:-

 8.    On the basis of pleadings of both the parties, it is evident that, the complainant has availed KCC loan to the extent of Rs. 90,000/- on 07.08.2006 with OP bank by providing collateral security of her agricultural lands bearing No. 246-A /1C-2, 409-B/1a, 409-B/1b, and 409-B/3a of Kolur Village, by executing the registered Mortgage Deed in favour of OP Bank, before the Sub-Registrar Kurugodu, and now the above said loan has been cleared by the complainant to the satisfaction of OP Bank.   But it is the allegation of the complainant that, despite paying the entire loan amount the bank has not returned the original document submitted by the complainant to bank for availing the above said loan.

9.    The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that, after clearance of the above said debt, the OP bank has executed Cancellation  of deed of mortgage on 08.09.2016 , but the original documents were not returned to complainant . In this regard the complainant has approached the OP Bank with request return the original records, even then the OP has not cared the complainant. Then the complainant has issued a letter on 08.12.2017 to OP Bank for return of original records. Even after receipt of the said letter the OP, neither replied nor returned the documents to the complainant, but orally intimated to the complainant that, same are misplaced. On repeated enquiry by the complainant for return of said documents then the OP Bank has written a letter on 25.07.2017 to the Sub-Registrar Bellary for getting certified copies of the original records. So the complainant has no other way to issue legal notice to OP for getting return of the said original documents. Accordingly, legal notice dated 23.08.2019 issued to OP through her counsel, and in reply to the said notice, the bank has intimated on 13.09.2019 to the counsel for the complainant saying that, bank has traced your documents , and requested to collect the documents from the bank. As per the said reply, the complainant had approached the bank , she found that, the documents belongs to her are certified copies, then the OP Bank has forced her to sing in the register, but after getting the knowledge, she refused for the same, as the said documents are the duplicate documents. So the complainant contended that, bank has lost the original documents of the complainant, hence they failed to return the said documents to the complainant. Therefore, the said original documents are lost in the Bank, which attributes the negligence on the part of the bank in not returning of original documents to the complainant even after clearance of debt which  is a deficiency of service in the eye of law. Hence she prayed to allow the compliant.        

10.    The learned counsel for the OP has replied by way of his argument, contending that, while availing the above said loan, the bank has not insisted the complainant to provide original title deeds, but asked only the descriptions of land records shown in mortgage deed for sanctioning of said loan, so the complainant has not furnished any original title
Deed of Mortgaged land, and the complainant never deposited the same with OP bank. Normally, the banker are collecting the original title deeds from the customer only in case of deposit of title deeds ( DTD ). But in the present case, the complainant has executed a simple mortgage without depositing the original title deeds. So, the question of receiving original title deed from the complainant by the OP Bank does not arise. And consequently, the question of returning the original title deed to the complainant also does not arise by bank, even after payment of outstanding dues. After payment of loan dues, immediately the bank has executed registered Cancellation of Deed or Re-conveyance Deed  on 08.09.2016 in favour of the complainant, and thereby, bank has relieved it’s lien over the mortgaged property.

11.   On 15.07.2019 the complainant through her son submitted an application to the bank requesting to handover the original documents. Further on 23.08.2019 the complainant has sent a legal notice to OP bank by asking original documents in respect of mortgaged land, and said notice has been duly replied by the bank on 13.09.2019 by denying the allegation made in the said legal notice. But, in the abundant caution the bank has informed the complainant that, the bank shall search any documents available in the office, further it was also informed that, some documents traced by the bank’s staff and asked the complainant to collect the same pertaining to mortgage lands. But the complainant never came forward to collect the documents therefore; same is filed in this case by the bank. Finally, it was replied that, the complainant should not choose to initiate any proceedings against the banker. On 25.07.2019 a letter was address to the Sub-Registrar for supply of certified copies to the complainant about the original title deeds at the cost and expenses  of the Bank in order to help her, as the complainant was very rudely behaved in the bank, but that itself it does not mean that, the OP Banker has possessed the original title deeds of the lands. So, the complainant unnecessarily claiming original title deeds, which are not at all deposited with the banker. Hence the complainant set up a false claim against the banker with a malafide intention to grab the money by way of compensation, which is not permitted under law. Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP Bank in any manner, as alleged by the complainant.

12.    By considering the length of the above said arguments we noticed that, admittedly, the complainant has executed a Simple Mortgage before the Sub- Registrar Bellary, in favour of the bank for availing above said loan facilities. So, the complainant claiming the original title deed of the mortgage property, which is no way concern to the loan agreement and above loan has not been granted by way of deposit of title deeds. Hence the said original title deed of the mortgaged property is not the subject matter of loan agreement. Under such circumstances, when the said documents is not part and parcel of the said loan agreement the question of returning the original title deeds by the banker does not arise.

13.     We further noticed that, the complainant has issued two letters to the banker as per Annexure-P-2 and Annexure P-3 requesting the bank to return the original documents.  However, on perusal of the said letters the complainant has not specifically asked the banker, which original documents she wanted to get return from the bank. So, in the absence of any specific plea regarding original title deed of the complainant the question of returning the same by the bank does not arise, but however, in the legal notice issued through her counsel, the complainant has specifically pleaded for return of original title deed of her mortgaged property, but same has been replied by the banker on 13.09.2019 by denying the fact of deposit of original title deeds with the bank, but asked the complainant to collect other documents which were given at the time granting the above said loan to the complainant. But the complainant did not turn up for collecting those documents. On perusal of the said legal notice of the complainant, for the first time the complainant has demanded the banker to return original title deed of her landed property and for that, the OP has suitably replied saying that, the bank has not collected original title deeds from the complainant. Under the circumstances the duty cost on the complainant to prove that, she has given original title deed to the banker for sanctioning the above said loan.  Otherwise, such say of the complainant that, she has given original title deeds to the bank does not holds good.

14.    The contention of the learned counsel for the complainant regarding obtaining of the certified copy of the said original title deeds by the bank from the Sub-Registrar Bellary, is evidenced for misplacement of the said documents in the bank is not correct. Because it is specifically traversed by the OP bank stating that, on account of rude behaviour of the complainant in the bank premises, the bank has decided to collect the said certified copies from the Sub-Registrar at his own cost in order to help the complainant is holds good, looking to the present facts and circumstances of this case. Therefore, collection of certified copies by the bank does not create any adverse inference on the subject matter as contended by counsel for the complainant. But such bonafide efforts of the bank are made only in order to help his customers, which is not barred under any law. Therefore, looking to any angle, in our view, the above act of the OP does not constitute any deficiency in his service towards the complainant.

15.   The learned counsel for the complainant as relied upon the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in reported in 2019 (5) KCCR. SN 257 (SC) between Govindhai Chhotabbai Patel Vs. Patel Ramanbhai Mathurbhai, where in the Hon’ble Apex Court was held that, “Written statement- Must deal specifically with each allegation of facts in plaint- Upon denial, defendant must not do so evasively – If this denial is not specific or evasive, given fact alleged to be taken as admitted”. 

16.    By care full perusal of the said judgement, same is not aptly applicable to the say of the complainant, but the considering the principals laid down in the said judgement, the OPs in this case have taken specific contention by denying the deposit of original title deed with the OPs bank for availing loan and taken the above contention at para 10 (1) of his written version.  So, the contention of the complainant that, no contention of depositing title deed was taken in the written version is false. But, when the OPs have taken specific contention on the said issue in their written version.  Hence, the above said citation is not come to the aid of the complainant. 

17.   The advocate for the complainant has submitted another citation reported in 2020 CJ  418 (NC) between State Bank of India Vs. Amithesh Mazumder, wherein the Hon’ble National Commission was held that, the Bank cannot show any laxity in preserving title-deeds which they are bound to return to loanee on repayment of loan amount. 

18.    On perusal of the said judgment where in the bank has admitted the deposit of the title deed by the loanee with bank which was not traceable in bank,  but in this case the same is denied by the OP bank stating that, the complainant has not deposited her original title deed with the bank for availing loan. Hence, the Hon’ble National Commission was directed the bank to pay compensation on admitted facts.  Under the circumstances, as compared the said judgment to instant case, facts are not similar each other.  Hence, the said judgment is also not suit the claim of the complainant.    

19.    It is further observed that, the complainant has not produced any document to show that, she has given the original title deeds of her property to the bank. But mere allegations against the bank for return of said documents are not helpful to the complainant to prove the point No.1.  Hence in our view as stated above, the complainant has failed to prove the point No.1.  So, the same is answered by us in the Negative. 

Point No.2:-

20.    In view of our answered to the point No.1 as Negative, the claim of the complainant is not maintainable against the OP.  Hence, the complainant is not entitled any reliefs as claimed in her complaint from OP.  Hence, the point No.2 is answered by us in the Negative. Thus we proceed to pass the following order.       

  

//ORDER//

 

         The complaint filed by the complainant U/Sec.12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the OP is dismissed with no order as to cost.

 

  Inform the parties accordingly.

 

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, typescript edited, corrected and then pronounced in the open court this 6th day of March 2021)

 

 

  Smt.Marla Shashikala        Sri.H. Veera Shekar       Sri. A.H. Malaghan

       Lady Member.                                 Member.                       President,            

District Consumer Commission Ballari.                District Consumer Commission Ballari.          District Consumer Commission Ballari.