BANK OF BARODA Vs. RUBIA INTERNATIONAL EXPORT INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by Bank of Baroda & Anr., petitioners against the order dated 16.7.2015 of the Rajasthan, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in Appeal No. 1346 of 2011.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that complainant has filed present complaint on the facts that he had taken a loan of Rs. 15.50 lakh from opposite party Bank after mortgaging original documents of its property and after repayment of the loan, those documents were to be returned. When the complainant failed to return the loan taken by him in due time, the Bank filed a case against him in District Court Sawai Madhopur which was decreed on 30.11.99. The process of execution was to be done by Debt Recovery Tribunal. Debt Recovery Tribunal issued a recovery certificate of Rs. 12,63,071. Thereafter an agreement was entered into and as per the agreement the complainant deposited agreed amount of Rs. 9,75,000 (One Time) with the Opposite Party. It is the contention of the complainant that even after payment of entire amount the opposite party did not return his original documents and the complainant wrote letters dated: 31.5.2005, 13.6.2005 and 18.6.2005 in this regard. It is the contention of the complainant that on 15.6.2005 OP No. 2 informed him by letter that the original documents of the property have been lost which caused a great mental agony to the complainant. Complainant had submitted that by not returning the original documents, the opposite party had committed deficiency in service. In such a situation, the complainant had asked for Original Documents, Rs. 5,00,000 for mental harassment and financial losses, Rs. 2,00,000 for wastage of time while visiting Bank, Rs. 5,00,000 for financial and business losses, and Rs. 21,000 for litigation and Counsel fee.

(3.) Opposite party while filing reply to the complaint filed by the complainant admitted the facts regarding sanctioning of loan after mortgaging of property documents, repayment of loan amount by the complainant, and loss of the documents. Opposite party had submitted that Counsel for the Bank had obtained documents from the Court but they have not been received by the bank. They have provided the complainant with the certified copes of Patta dated 1.12.90 and power of attorney dated 27.1.90. The opposite party had asked for dismissal of the complaint.