Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

By filing this complaint case u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Dr. Samar Pal, the Complainant has prayed for the following relief:

(a) To release two nos. original Sale deeds/Title deeds, including original sanction plan of the house, original BL & LRO Tax receipt, original panchayat tax receipt, (b) compensation for a sum of Rs. 18,00,000/-  and (c) issuance of No Objection Certificate.

Case of the Complainant, in short, is that, he took a loan amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- from the OP No. 4 bank on 02-09-2004.  As per the terms and conditions of the loan, Complainant pledged two original sale deeds and other documents, viz., two LIC policies, tax receipt of the concerned panchayat, original money receipt for the sanctioned plan of the proposed house, copy of the estimated cost of construction and tax receipt of BL&LRO. On 22-02-2013, Complainant made an application before the Bank Manager of the OP No. 4 to release the original sale deeds for one day to get the mutation done, which was, however, turned down by him.  According to the advice of the OP No. 4, Complainant repaid the residual outstanding on 25-10-2013.  Despite this, neither the OPs have issued NoC in his favour nor returned the pledged documents to him.  Hence, the complaint.

By submitting a WV, the OPs denied all the material allegations of the complaint.  Per contra case of the OPs is that, on 05-08-2004, the Complainant made an application before the OP No. 4 for sanctioning a loan of Rs. 5,00,000/-. In that application, the Complainant categorically stated that he availed a ‘Union Home Loan’ of Rs. 2,10,000/- from the Masat branch of the OP Bank in the year 2001 and he wanted to close the said account for his convenience and for this purpose, he needed a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- to do the needful.  The Complainant also stated that he required another sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- for purchasing an adjacent plot of land and the remaining amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was required for repairing and renovating his dwelling house.  On the basis of his application, OP No. 4 did an inspection on 07-08-2004 and approved the desired loan in favour of the Complainant by executing an agreement on 23-08-2004.  The Complainant on 01-09-2004 made an application before the OP No. 4 for transferring Rs. 1,50,000/- to his Masat branch loan account and accordingly, the said sum was remitted to the concerned branch on 02-09-2004.  The title deed of the existing house of the Complainant was kept with the Masat branch of the OPs as security against the loan sanctioned by them in favour of the Complainant.  At the time of disbursement of housing loan from the OP No. 4 branch, the said title deed was with the Masat branch of the OPs which was returned to the Complainant by the said branch on 18-09-2004.  However, the Complainant did not submit the said title deed to the OP No. 4 subsequently. The OPs denied any deficiency in service on their part.

The moot point for consideration is whether the Complainant deserves any relief or not.

Decision with reasons

Both parties filed affidavit in chief in respect of their respective submissions and both of them were cross examined by means of questionnaire to which due replies were given by them.

I have heard the Ld. Advocates of the parties and gone through the documents on record.

At the very outset, be it mentioned here that although the Complainant filed the case seeking several documents from the OPs, at the time of hearing, it was confirmed by him that save and except the original title deed of his dwelling house, he has received back all other documents from the OPs.  However, Ld. Advocate for the Complainant rued the fact that the OPs have not yet issued NoC despite repayment of the loan amount in full long ago.

The specific case of the OPs is that they have not received the concerned title deed in respect of the dwelling house of the Complainant. 

It is claimed by the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant that on 18-09-2004, the original title deed was released by the Masat branch of the OP Bank, and on the very same day the same was handed over to the OP No. 4 branch. 

On perusal of the Complainant’s letter dated 05-08-2004, I find that there is an endorsement to the effect, “Deed for adjacent land submitted.  Subsequently, original deed will be submitted’.  Significantly, the endorsement does not carry any signature or official stamp of the OP Bank.  Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that it was indeed the handwriting of the designated bank official, it does not acknowledge in any manner whatsoever receipt of the original deed of the Complainant’s residential house by the OP Bank. 

Since the disputed original deed was admittedly released by the Masat branch or the OP Bank on 18-09-2004, i.e., after disbursement of the loan amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- by the OP No. 4 bank, it was incumbent on the part of the Complainant to obtain necessary receipt from the OP No. 4 while depositing the same with it, if at all submitted.  In case he did not insist on such receipt, it was definitely his fault.  Merely on the basis of a claim, veracity of the same cannot be ascertained independently. 

I also find from the copy of an internal memo  of the OP No. 4 bank dated 06-05-2011 that the then Branch Manager communicated to the Asst. General Manager of the OP Bank that in the internal audit report dated 29-04-2005, there was an observation to the effect that EM not created (legal opinion/valuation/affidavit/noting/sanctioning etc. not done). 

Thus, while the matter of submission of original title deed in respect of the dwelling house of the Complainant is not established beyond all reasonable doubt, I do not deem it fit and proper to give any such direction to the OPs to hand over the disputed Title Deed to the Complainant.

However, I find that although the Complainant repaid the loan amount fully, the OPs have not issued any NoC in favour of the Complainant as yet.  It is not understood, what prevented the OPs from handing over the said NoC when all other pledged documents were returned to the Complainant.  During the course of hearing, Ld. Advocate for the OPs alleged that the Complainant refused to receive the NoC from them.  This is hardly believable.  If that was indeed so, they could send the NoC by post.  Thus, I find gross deficiency in service on the part of the OPs in this respect.

Accordingly, the complaint case stands allowed in part.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

The case stands allowed on contest in part with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- being payable by the OPs to the Complainant.  OPs are further directed to handover/send the NoC to the Complainant within 40 days from this day and pay compensation for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for causing harassment, mental stress and pain to him.  In case the order is not complied with in toto within 40 days from today, Complainant shall be at liberty to execute this order in accordance with law