ORDER
By Smt. Bindu. R, President:
This complaint is filed by Dhanya. M, Vattaparambil (H), Kurinhakkurissi (P.O), Cherpulassery, Palakkad and another against the Manager, South Indian Bank, Meppadi, Meppadi (P.O) as Opposite Party alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Party.
2. The Complainants stated that the Complainants were residing at Arappatta, Meppadi, Wayanad along with their family and their father had a bakery business at Arappatta. Father of the Complainant took a term loan from the Opposite Party on 18.02.1997 for Rs.1.64 Lakh and another loan for Rs.0.35 Lakh with loan No.AGW/DIS/753/97-98. But the business became loss and the Complainant’s father Bhaskaran and mother Santhakumari committed suicide on 02.12.2000 and the Complainants shifted their residence to Palakkad and started residing with the relatives. The Complainants stated that their father made some repayments towards the loan. Even though they approached the Opposite Party bank to write off the loan and to return the documents submitted by the father of the Complainants, Opposite Party had not returned the documents till date and since the Complainants are minor during that period, they could not continue the business and repay the loan amount.
3. The Complainants state that on 03.02.2023 the Complainants went to the Opposite Party branch and requested to return the documents but Opposite Party insisted for repayment of loan amount. Later the Complainant took an encumbrance certificate from Kalpetta Sub Registrar Office on 04.05.2023 which shows no encumbrances over the property, which is also informed to the Opposite Party by the Complainants. Complainant states that after the death of Complainant’s father in the year 2000 the Opposite Party had not taken any steps to realize the amount but they are still keeping the documents with them which amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Party and hence the Complainant praying for issuing a direction to the Opposite Party to release the documents which are pledged to the Opposite Party by the father of the Complainant for taking the loan and for other reliefs.
4. Upon notice, Opposite Party entered into appearance and filed their version contenting that the complaint is not maintainable and is to be dismissed. It is admitted by the Opposite Party that Complainant’s father availed a loan of Rs.1.64 Lakh and 0.35 Lakh for developing his bakery business with loan No.AGW/DD/753/97-96. According to Opposite Party, the Complainants had not approached the Opposite Party for getting back the title deed and the Opposite Party had not denied the request or refused to return the title deed and the Opposite Party never asked the Complainants to produce non encumbrance certificate. According to Opposite Party a person said to be an uncle of the Complainants approached the Opposite Party on 21.12.2022 with a letter signed by Complainants requesting for the return of documents. Since there are so many formalities to be complied with to return the documents pledged to a third party, the Opposite Party explained the difficulties to him and asked him to submit some documents to hand over the pledged documents to him and there after the Complainants or their agent has not turned up. It is submitted by the Opposite party that they are ready and willing to hand over all the documents submitted by the father of the Complainants at the time of availing the loan, if the Complainants or their agent on executing necessary documents in accordance with the guidelines of the bank. They deny the allegation of deficiency of service on their part and prays for dismissal of the complaint.
5. Evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A4 from the side of the Complainants and the oral evidence of OPW1 and Ext.B1 from the side of the Opposite Party.
6. Heard both sides and perused the records.
7. The following are the points to be analysed in this case.
- Whether the Complainants had sustained to any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Parties?
- If so, the compensation and costs for which the Complainants are entitled to get?
8. The specific case of the Complainants before the Commission is that the
Father (late) of the Complainants, took loan by mortgaging the property belonging to them when the Complainants were minors. The said loan was written off by the Opposite Party. According to PW1 in the box, she deposed that “Documents Xncn¨p In«-W-sa¶v ImWn¨v Fsâ A½m-hsâ ssIhiw 21.12.2022 \v Hcp I¯v \ÂIn Ab-¨p”. She further deposed that “ 2023 apX Rm³ _m¦ns\ document \p thn kao-]n-¨n-cp-¶p. B ka-b¯v papers ImWp-¶nà F¶mWv Adn-bn-¨Xv 2023 apX _m¦ns\ kao-]n-¨-Xn tcJ Xncn¨v Xcm-¯-Xn tcJm-aqew ]cmXn Fhn-sSbpw sImSp-¯n-«nÔ. PW1 further deposed that the encumbrance certificate was taken as per her own will and wish and she is not aware about the list of documents submitted given to her uncle when he approached the bank.
9. During cross examination of OPW1 he deposed that loan was taken during 1997 and title deeds were submitted at the time of taking the loan and he is having the loan file in which the details of the documents produced are available. But according to OPW1, the said file may not be containing the details of writing off the loan and transaction relating to the loan. As per the rules of the bank, the write off the loan will be intimated to the borrower. OPW1 also deposed that the documents are available in the bank locker and in Ext.B1, the Complainant states that “\m«p-Im-cp-sSbpw _Ôp-an-{Xm-Xn-I-fp-sSbpw klm-b-t¯msS ]ncn¨p In«nb ]Ww _m¦n-te¡v \ÂIn R§-fpsS B[m-chpw aäp tcJ-Ifpw XncnsI \ÂIWw F¶v hn\o-X-ambn At]-£n-¡p-¶p”. According to OPW1 bank never asked for payment of money but in Ext.B1 it is the version of Complainant that they are ready to repay the amount. Loan was closed which is intimated to the Complainant and bank never asked to pay the amount to the person who approached the bank on behalf of the Complainants. According to OPW1, the documents pledged are with the Opposite Party and it will be handed over to the legal heirs when approached with the relevant documents. According to OPW1 only Pattayam is produced in the loan which they are ready to give back on proper production of documents to show that they are the legal heirs of the borrower.
10. In this case even according to the Complainant the loan was taken in the year 1997 and it is their uncle who approached the bank for getting back the documents. The Complainants have no case that they themselves have approached the bank with necessary documents to show that they are the legal heirs of the borrower.
11. The Commission on going through the entire course of the Complainant and also on perusing the available documents and evidences reaches into the
following derivation.
12. The father of the Complainant had availed loan from the Opposite Party bank more than two decades back and he had not repaid the amount in bank. At that stage he had committed suicide and the children who are the Complainants were minors and they had shifted their residence to Palakkad. The Opposite Party had not initiated any steps to recover the loan amount through out the period and it is stated that the Opposite Party is willing to release the documents to the Complainants. According to the Opposite Party the Complainants had not approached the Opposite Party so far requesting for the documents.
13. In these circumstances the Commission found deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party are not proved by the Complainant. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the following orders are passed.
- The Complainants shall file the required documents as per Rules and the Opposite Party shall release the documents to the Complainants without charging any amount.
Since the allegation raised by the Complainant has not been proved no cost
or compensation is ordered in this case.
Consumer Case disposed off.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 18th day of November 2024.
Date of filing:23.08.2023. PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the Complainant:
PW1. Dhanya. M. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Party:
OPW1. Abit. T.M. Branch Manager, SIB, Meppadi.
Exhibits for the Complainant:
A1. Death Certificate.
A2. Copy of Family Membership Certificate.
A3. Copy of Newspaper Advertisement.
A4. Certificate of Encumbrance on Property. dt:04.05.2023.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party:
B1. Copy of Letter. dt:21.12.2022.
PRESIDENT: Sd/- MEMBER : Sd/-
