HYDERABAD: A district consumer forum has directed Union Bank of India to pay 1 lakh compensation to a consumer for failing to return the title deed, submitted as collateral for an educational loan, even after closure of the loan.
The forum asked the bank to either trace the document and return it to the consumer within 30 days or issue an indemnity bond, undertaking to indemnify the complainant against any loss or damage if she suffers due to the misuse of the lost/untraced document, pay compensation and 25, 000 as costs.
Usha Rani Jaishwal, an account holder of the erstwhile Andhra Bank (now Union Bank of India) , approached the Sultan Bazar branch for obtaining an education loan for her son. She offered her property at Troop Bazar as collateral. She said the bank sanctioned 4 lakh against the title deed of the property. After repaying the loan amount along with interest, she requested the bank to return her property documents.
Jaishwal contended that every time she asked for her document the standard reply she received was they were searching for it and that it would be returned once traced. She claimed that in response to a legal notice issued by her counsel, the bank informed her that the document could not be traced. She said that because of the non-availability of the original sale deed, she couldn’t sell the property for her personal needs at a decent price.
Alleging negligence and deficiency in service by the bank, she filed a complaint with the consumer forum.
The bank, in its written reply, submitted that they would return the documents immediately or within two to three days. When she approached the bank again, Union Bank, not aware of the complete facts, replied that they would trace the document and that the complainant was attempting to take undue advantage of the situation.
During the trial, the bench noticed that the bank had even issued a public notice in a vernacular paper that documents, which were in their custody, were missing. “The opposite party (in the public notice and reply to legal notice) has admitted that the original title deed document, which was in the custody of the bank, was not traceable and the opposite party cannot be permitted now to say that the complainant may have taken back the deposited title deeds,” the bench said.
