Date of Filing: 29-05-2018
Date of Order: 29 -11-2019
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – I, HYDERABAD
P r e s e n t
HON’BLE Sri P.VIJENDER, B.Sc. L.L.B., PRESIDENT
HON’BLE Sri K.RAM MOHAN, B.Sc. M.A L.L.B., MEMBER
HON’BLE Smt. CH. LAKSHMI PRASANNA, B.Sc. LLM. ,(PGD(ADR),MEMBER
Friday, the 29th day of November, 2019
C.C.No.230 /2018
Between
- Praveen Seripally,
S/o.Late Krishna Murthy,Aged about (38) years,
Occ: I.T.Professional,
(Aadhar No.234369827574)
- Smt S.Vijayalaxmi,
Wife of Late Krishnamurthy,
Aged about (58) years,Occu: House-hold,
(Aadhar No.31820005988)
Both R/o.House No.3-4-162/6, Behind Eeshwar,
Theatre, Attapur, Hyderabad – 500 048
Both rep. by their sole GPA Holder,
Sri M.Satyanarayana,
Son of Late Ramakistaiah,
Aged about 65 years,
Occu: Retd. APSRTC employee,
R/o.H.No.8-2-684/100, NBT Nagar,
Road No.12, Banjara Hills,
Hyderabad – 500 034,
Telangana State
(Aadhar No.468003447708)
Vide GPA dated 05.2018) ……Complainants
And
- IDBI Bank Limited, Retail Asset Centre,
Ground floor, Mahavir House,
Near Police Commissioner Office,
Basheerbagh, Hyderabad – 500 029
Rep. by it’s Manager
- IDBI Bank Limited,
3rd floor Annex Building,
Plot No.39/40/41, Sector 11,
CBD-Belapur,Navi Mumbai – 400 614,
Rep. by it’s General Manager ….Opposite Parties
Counsel for the complainants : Mr. G.Maloji Rao
Counsel for the opposite Parties : Mr.V. Suresh Babu
O R D E R
(By HON’BLE Smt. CH. LAKSHMI PRASANNA, B.Sc. LLM., (PGD(ADR) MEMBER)
The complainant has filed this complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties with prayer to direct the opposite parties:-
- to execute Indemnity Bond Undertaking to indemnify the complainants or anybody claiming through or under them, from any loss, injury and harassment etc., on account of damage to the deposited title deeds of his property caused by the negligence of the Opposite Parties,
- pay compensation of at least Rs.10,000/-on account of delay in furnishing the no dues certificate and No Lien Certificate to the complainants from 12/3/2018 i.e the date of the letter of Opposite Party No.1 together with interest @ 24%p.a till the date of filing of the complaint and realization;
- pay compensation of at least Rs.15,00,000/- together with interest @24% p.a from 12/3/2018 i.e the date of the letter of Opposite Party No.1 till the date of filing of the complaint and realization;
- pay at least a sum of Rs.50,000/- together with interest @24% till the date of realization towards compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainants.
- The brief averments made in the complaint are as under:-
The complainant had obtained a housing loan from the opposite parties and purchased the Plot No.192 in Sy.No. 55 & 56 admeasuring 200 sq.yds, at Block No.9, Raghvendranagar, Jillelaguda Village, Saroornagar Revenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy District vide Regd.Sale Deed Doc. No.2710/2007 dt.24/12/2007. At the time of obtaining the said loan against the property, complainant had deposited the original title deeds and other link documents with the Bank under a Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds for creation of Equitable Mortgage towards security of repayment of loan by him, duly acknowledged by the Opposite Party through the letter dt.9/1/2008 (Exhibit A-2). On repayment of the entire loan amount of Rs.11,00,000/- with the stipulated interest within the time by the Complainant, the opposite party had issued a No-Dues Certificate intimating the complainant that his Housing loan under account No. 811675100177313 was closed with full recovery.
However, the Opposite Party No.1 informed the complainant vide Letter No.IDBI-RAC-811/2018/3/04 dt.12/3/ that the original tile deeds and link documents which were deposited towards security for repayment of the Housing loan were partially damaged owing to a fire accident on 11/12/2017 in their leased Storage premises viz. Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd.(SHCIL) in Mumbai and the same shall be returned as the complainant’s loan account was closed on full repayment and make necessary arrangements to facilitate in obtaining the certified copies from the concerned Sub-Registrar Office.
Aggrieved by the damage of his original title deeds caused in the fire accident and the ensuing problem in dealing with the property in future without the original deeds, the complainant contended that neither the Opposite party informed nor obtained his consent to shift his loan documents to Mumbai and hence this complaint alleging negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party. reply.
- The Opposite parties in their written version, while admitting the factual aspects of the case that the complainant has availed a loan from the opposite parties by mortgaging his title of the documents and the original title deeds and the link documents were partially damaged in the fire accident on 11/12/2017 in their leased Storage premises viz. Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd.(SHCIL) in Mumbai, they denied negligence on their part as the damage was caused by a fire accident. In fact, showing their bonafides, the Opposite Party No.1 informed him through letter No.IDBI-RAC-811/2018/03/04 dt.12/3/2018 to collect the partially damaged title deeds and link documents and acknowledge the receipt of the same.
- In the enquiry, the complainant filed his evidence affidavit reiterating the averments in the complaint supporting his claim with 6 documents including the Home Loan Agreement, the Letter of the Opposite Party informing about the fire accident causing damage to his title deeds and his legal notice to the Opposite parties to compensate for the loss incurred due to the damage to the original title deeds and link documents of his property.
For the Opposite party, Evidence Affidavit of the Assistant General Manager, Head-Centre of the Opposite Party-Bank was filed the documentary evidence of Fire Report ( Ex-B-8), news report in the Original Panchanamaand translated version of of the fire accident that occurred on 11/12/2017 in their leased storage premises SHCIL in Mumbai, along with the Certified Copies of the title deeds and the link documents duly signed by the Sub Registrar, Chamapet, Ranga Reddy District.
4) Based on the facts and material brought on record, and written arguments submitted by both the parties, the following points have emerged or consideration:
- Whether the complainant could make out the case of deficiency and negligence of service on the part of the Opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim/compensation made in the complaint?
- To what relief?
- ) Point No.1: It is to be examined whether the loss/damage of the original title deeds and link documents of the complainant’s property caused by the fire accident can be attributable to the negligence of the Opposite Party. Depositing of the title deeds by the complainant with the Bank towards equitable mortgage for repayment of his housing loan, is similar to bailment as defined under Sec. 148 of the Contract Act, and the Bank-Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, as a bailees, becomes liable to take as much care of the goods bailed as is required by Sec. 151 of the Act until the purpose is accomplished and/or the goods are returned to the bailor-the complainant herein. In all cases of bailment the bailee is bound to take as much care of the goods bailed to him as a man of ordinary prudence would, under similar circumstances, take of his own goods of the same bulk, quality and value as the goods bailed.
As explained by the House of Lords in the leading case of (1895) AC 632 at p. 640, the duty of a bailee to take reasonable care comprises care in two directions
(i) The duty to take all reasonable precautions to obviate the risks which may be reasonably apprehended;
(ii) The duty to take all proper measures for the protection of the goods when such risks are imminent or had actually happened.
In the instant case, as per the Fire Report Ex-B-8, there was a fire accident on 11/12/2017 in the basement of the leased premises SHCIL in Mumbai resulting in loss and destruction of documents and damage to property. The documents of the Opposite Party were stored in metal containers in the robotic metal container storage facility in Bsement-2 and processing are in Bay-3. Therefore these documents were largely unaffected by fire but may have got impacted by water used for extinguishing fire and minimal damage occurred due to the heat. Thus, the Opposite Parties can be reasonably said to have discharged their duty to take reasonable care to protect the documents from any unforeseen events like the fire accident and firefighting operations were carried out in right earnest to mitigate the damage to the documents and property. Further, the Complainant failed to establish any negligence against the Opposite Parties with respect to the fire accident which is purely accidental and beyond their control. In the absence of any substantial evidence attributing negligence on the part of the Opposite party for the loss/damage caused by the fire accident, this Forum cannot but hold that the allegation of negligence against the opposite parties is not justified..
6) Point No.2:- As the original title deeds of the complainant got partially damaged in the fire accident while in the custody of the opposite parties, the Opposite Parties came forward to make necessary arrangements to facilitate in obtaining the certified copies of the title deeds and link documents from the concerned sub-registrar office. All the above efforts of the Opposite Party goes to show their bonafides in remedying the damage caused and making good for the inconvenience caused to the complainant, although the Force Majeure clause 20.1 of the Customer Compensation Policy categorically states that “the Bank shall not be liable to compensate customers due to unforeseen event including but not limited to civil commotion, sabotage, lockout, strike or other labour disturbances, accident, fires, natural disasters or other “Acts of God”, war, damage to the Bank’s facilities or of its correspondent Bank(s) systems, absence of the usual means of communication or all types of transportation, etc. beyond the control of the Bank, prevents the Bank from performing its obligations within the specified service delivery parameters.”
It is pertinent to mention that there is no material on record filed by either parties reflecting insurance coverage, nor proof of actual damage suffered by the complainant due to the partial damage of the title deeds nor there is any reasonable foreseeable consequential loss to the complainant or risk of third party claims or cloud on title of property as it is not the case of misplacement or loss of the title deeds and the partially damaged original documents are very much available. The Apex Court and various High Courts have upheld the validity of creation of equitable mortgage on deposit of certified copies of the original title deeds and there is no legal embargo in transfer of property with duplicate documents appended by the FIR and other relevant documents reflecting the damage caused to the originals ( in the fire accident in this case).
Keeping in mind the aforesaid decisions of the various Courts and on a careful scrutiny of the materials placed before this Court and also in the light of the aforesaid discussions, this Forum is of the considered opinion that negligence cannot be inferred on the part of the Opposite Parties as the damage was caused by the fire which was accidental and there was no deficiency in service by the Opposite parties as they made all efforts to mitigate the loss for the complainant and take necessary steps to facilitate in obtaining certified copies and duplicate copies of the original title deeds and the link documents.
Be that as it may, finding it fair and just to award reasonable compensation for the damage of the original documents and hardship caused to the complainant, the complaint is partially allowed directing the Opposite Party to bear the costs of obtaining certified copies and pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the mental agony and inconvenience caused to the complainant.
7) Point No.3: In the result, the complaint is partially allowed directing the Opposite Party
- To bear the costs of obtaining certified copies
- To pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the mental agony and inconvenience caused to the complainant.
Time granted for compliance is thirty days from service of this order
Dictated to steno, transcribed and typed by her, pronounced by us on this the 29th day of November , 2019
LADYMEMBER MALEMEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Exs. filed on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A1- Original GPA
Ex.A2 – letter of opposite party No.1 dt.9-1-2008
Ex.A3- home loan agreement dt.9-12-2007
Ex.A4- loan sanction letter dated. 12-01-2018
Ex.A5- Photostat letter of opposite party No.1 dt.12-03-2018
Ex.A6- office copy of legal notice dt.18-03-2018 along with extract from the postal department website and one acknowledgment card
Exs. filed on behalf of the Opposite party
Ex.B1 – copy of registered sale deed dt.30-11-1998
Ex.B2- copy of registered sale deed dated 30-4-2001
Ex.B3- copy of registered sale deed dated 30-4-2001
Ex.B4- copy of registered sale agreement – cum GPA with possession dt.15-11-2006
Ex.B5- copy of registered sale deed dt.24-12-2007
Ex.B6- the original letter No.IDBI-RAC-811/2018/03/04 dated 12-03-2018
Ex.B7- print of the E-mail dated 12-04-2018 addressed to the complainant No.1 by Ops
Ex.B8- Fire report dt.11/12/2017
Ex.B9- Police incident Spot’ Panchnama dt.26-12-2017
LADYMEMBER MALEMEMBER PRESIDENT
