INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK Vs. A KANNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The opposite parties in COP No.135/2002 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore, are the appellants herein. The respondent/complainant went before the District Forum alleging as follows : the complainant borrowed Rs.95,000 from the 1st opposite party on 30.3.1995 for establishing a pharmacy under the Prime Minister's Rozgar Yojana (PMRY) Scheme. At that time he had given the title deeds relating to his property as security. The title deeds stood in the name of his father Arumugam. He remitted a sum of Rs.79,000 towards the borrowal. In February , 2001, the 1st Opposite party demanded for the balance and interest which the complainant could not pay due to loss in business. After due negotiations between the complainant and the opposite parties 1 and 2, a settlement was arrived at before the Central office authorities as per the terms of which the complainant was directed by the Regional office authorities/ Central office authorities to remit a sum of Rs.54,000 as final settlement for closure of the loan account. But the opposite parties demanded payment of Rs.89,598 for closure of the account. The complainant remitted the said amount on 2.5.2002 and also obtained a receipt in proof of the closure. However, the 1st opposite party did not release the title deeds and instead, he furnished a statement of accounts. A notice was issued by the Counsel for the complainant, a copy of which was also sent to the 2nd opposite party. After receiving the same on 13.5.2002, the 1st opposite party and another person came to the complainant's shop and threatened him to put signature in front of his customers which ruined his reputation as if he had committed a grave mistake. He sent a complaint on 14.5.2002 to the 3rd opposite party for his immediate and necessary action. The 1st opposite party did not release the title deeds nor did he furnish the statement of accounts. The lst opposite party had also unlawfully made complainant remit amounts in excess and without any right retained the title deeds. He ought to have released the title deeds at the time of closure of the loan. By not returning the tide deeds, the 1st opposite party had closed the complainant's avenues for obtaining further loans from other institutions by depositing the title deeds. This had caused great mental agony, stress and strain to the complainant. In the circumstances, the complaint came to be filed demanding compensation in a sum of Rs.2 lakh with a prayer to return the documents besides furnishing a statement of accounts and refund of the excess amount collected from the complainant, and also costs.

(2.) The opposite parties took a stand that there were two thefts during periods from 19.5.2001 to 21.5.2001 and on 16th and 17th of June, 2001 in which many important documents and other valuables had been stolen away by cutting open the window grills. Gold ornaments weighing 12 kgs. valued at Rs.50 lakh had been stolen and other valuables were also lost. Some of them got mutilated. In their attempt to enter the Bank, the burglars had used gas welding machine to cut the steel cupboards and in the process, valuable documents kept in the steel cupboards had got burnt due to excessive heat and spark produced by the welding machine. The opposite parties also thought there should have been a mortgage and the document should be at Oppanakkara Street Branch and that branch was notified. The 1st opposite party had addressed a letter on 2.5.2002 to the Oppanakkara Street branch with the signature of the complainant's father duly attested in the letter and asked for the release of the title deeds to the complainant's father. But on the reply from the said branch the 1st opposite party came to know that no mortgage had been made on the said document and that the document had not been sent to that branch. They understood that the document was kept in the 1st opposite party's branch and it was either lost in the theft or burnt along with the other documents kept in the steel cupboard. There was absolutely no chance of missing the documents. The loss of the documents could be attributed only to the theft and not on account of any other reasons. It was an Act of God. There was no negligence or dereliction of duty on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties took all earnest efforts to trace the document and requested the complainant to allow sufficient time to trace them. It was not true to say that the 1st opposite party went to the complainant's shop and threatened him to put signature in order to square up the matter. The complaint was liable to be dismissed.

(3.) The District Forum found that there was negligence on the part of the opposite parties which amounted to deficiency in service and by order dated 7.11.2002 awarded a sum of Rs.25,000 as compensation to the complainant besides Rs.1,000 as cost of the proceedings. It is as against that the present appeal has been filed.