State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Branch Manager, Indian Overseas ... vs K.Vembaiah, S/O.Mr.Kandasmay, 2/16 ... on 6 January, 2012
THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI (BENCH II) Present: Thiru.A.K.Annamalai, M.A., M.L., M.Phil., Presiding Judicial Member, Thiru.S.Sambandam, B.Sc., Member. F.A.No.840/2010 [Against order in C.C.No.48/2010 on the file of the DCDRF, Tirunelveli] FRIDAY, THE 6th DAY OF JANUARY 2012. The Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Panpoli Branch, Panpoli, Sencottah Taluk, Tirunelveli District. .. Appellant/Opposite party /Vs/ K.Vembaiah, S/o.Mr.Kandasmay, 2/16 Ammankoil Street, Kannakapillai Valasi, Sencottah Taluk, Tirunelveli. .. Respondent/Complainant The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 1.12.2011, upon hearing the arguments of respondents side and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order :- Counsel for Appellant/Opposite party : Mrs.Sunanda Suren, Advocate. Counsel for Respondent/Complainant : M/s. K.Aravintha Bharathi, Advocate. ORDER
A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. Opposite party is the appellant.
2. Complainant filed a complaint against the opposite party claiming direction for payment of Rs.2,00,000/- towards mental agony, harassment and for medical expenses and for the costs due to deficiency of service by the opposite party.
3. The complainant obtained loan by hypothecating his auto TN 76-C-3277 in the year 2007 for which he has deposited the title deeds of his house property and executed mortgage deed on 7.5.07 and thereafter on discharging of the loan the opposite party sent no objection letter to the RTO for cancellation of hypothecation endorsement and when the complainant requested for the documents deposited along with the discharge of mortgage deed, the opposite party has not heeded for the same and thereby the complainant was prevented from obtaining loan from any other institution to meet out the sons medical expenses and to return the loan obtained for the same. Thereby after giving legal notice to the opposite parties complainant filed the consumer complaint claiming the reliefs as above.
4. The opposite party denied the allegations of the complainant in the written version and contended that the loan by pledging auto rickshaw was settled for which no objection letter was sent to the RTO on 12.9.2008 and regarding the mortgage deed cancellation as specimen printed form was issued to the complainant for fling with same engrossing on the stamp paper for presentation before the sub registration which was not complied by the complainant and other than the above loan the complainant also availed 7 jewel loans and some of the jewel loans were repaid for which the opposite party demanding the payment and discharge and threatening the sale of old ornaments by action in the event of failure and thereby aggrieved with the same, the complainant has come forward with this complaint falsely and for the notice given a reply was sent on 31.3.2010 for which the complainant issued a rejoinder and subsequently also he has obtained loan from the bank and that there is no deficiency of their part and the complaint to be dismissed.
5. The District Forum allowed the complaint by directing the opposite party to return the original documents deposited by the complainant after discharge of mortgage deed and also to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards costs.
6. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite party came to file this appeal and contended that the District Forum erroneously allowed the complaint when the complainant has not complied with the request of the bank by providing the stamp paper format for discharge of mortgage deed to be presented before the Sub-Registrar and with necessary registration charges and it is not correct to say that there are no proof to show that reminders were sent to the respondent demanding repayment of jewel loans and thereby complaint to be dismissed.
7. While considering both sides arguments, averments and contentions it is the admitted case of both sides that the complainant availed loan by pledging his auto for which also executed mortgage deed and memorandum of depositing of title deeds and the debt was discharged by the complainant and in spite of the same the documents deposited by the complainant was not returned along with the discharge endorsement of the mortgage deed. The complainant contended that this is because of deficiency of service.
Whereas the opposite party contended since the complainant failed to produce the stamped format for the discharge certificate to be produced before Sub Registrar for cancellation registration they are not in a position to return the document. For this even though they have contended issued so many reminders to the complainant he has not complied with and for which they relied upon Exhibit B5 xerox copy of the postal receipt. On perusal of Exhibit B5, the postal receipt mentioned the date for sending the registered post with the postal seal for 26.12.2010. But the complaint was filed by the complainant on 29.3.10 only after filing of the complaint the opposite party sent the notice for the alleged reminder for redemption of jewel loans after 7 months from the date of filing of complaint and the copy of the reminders sent was not filed before the District Forum. Further the complainant discharged loan as early as on 12.9.2008 and was insisting for the return documents and discharge of mortgage deed.
The opposite party contended he was provided with the specimen format for filing before the Sub Registrar with the details of the same engrossed on the stamp paper as per Exhibit B1 specimen but was not complied by the complainant till date of filing of complaint.
If that is the case the opposite party must have obtained acknowledgement for the specimen form supplied and with the specific direction for compliance with by specifying the time limit for the same and as pointed out by the District Forum there was no proof for the same is filed by the opposite party and even though it is contended in the reply notice which was stated in Exhibit B7 for this the complainant reputing the same by sending rejoinder under Exhibit B8. The opposite party contended because of forcing the complainant to settle the jewel loans obtained by the complainant on various dates, aggrieved by the same the complainant has filed the false complaint. It was not proved except to state in the pleading that there was oral arguments between the manager and the complainant in this regard as per the written version on 3.3.2010, the complainant entered in to heated argument with the Branch Manager and the complainant in this regard over reminders send by him and thereafter left the banking hall in a hub and sent the notice on the very same day. But the opposite party failed to produce any one of the such reminder notices sent to the complainant and contended even after those occurrence he has availed one further loan on 24.2.2010. By availing subsequent loan from the opposite partys bank itself cannot be considered as sufficient proof to disprove the deficiency of service by the opposite party.
8. In those circumstances in spite of the loan discharge was made by the complainant as early as on 9.9.08 till date of filing of complaint in March 2010 nearly for more than 1 years, the opposite party had not returned the documents deposited by the complainant along with the duly discharged mortgage deed which is considered as deficiency of service and thereby the complainant is entitled for the compensation for the same and in those circumstances when the District Forum order is perused regarding the quantum of compensation a sum of Rs.25,000/- for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings are awarded without assigning any reason for the arriving of such amounts with which alone we need to are of the view we interfere as those amounts are some what on the higher side by considering the nature of case and thereby we are of the view that it could be reduced to Rs.10,000/- and Rs.2,000/- respectively and accordingly to that extent alone the appeal to be allowed.
9. In the result the appeal is allowed in part by modifying the order of the District Forum, Thirunelveli, in C.C.No.48/2010 dated 6.10.2010 with the following directions :- (a) The order of the District Forum directing the opposite party to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and to pay Rs.5,000/- towards costs of proceedings are hereby set aside. (b) The opposite party/appellant directed to pay only a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant and Rs.2,000/- as costs. (c) In other respects the order of the District Forum is confirmed. However with the direction that the complaint should file the format on the stamp paper for the discharge of mortgage endorsement along with necessary fees payable to the Sub Registrar within one month from the date of this order, in order to enable the opposite party to get the mortgage deed cancellation endorsement and to return along with the deposited original documents of the complainant forthwith. No order as to costs in this appeal.
S.SAMBANDAM A.K.ANNAMALAI, MEMBER PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER INDEX : YES / NO sg/B-II/IOB