BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 28^TH DAY OF JULY 2022

ORDER

SRI.H.JANARDHAN, MEMBER

This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 35 of C.P.Act 2019 seeking a direction to the OP to compensate the complainants towards negligence of the OP in handling the valuable title deeds and consequent failure to return back the documents and to pay an amount of Rs.30,00,000/-. Direct the OP to pay Rs.50,00,000/- towards negligence on the part of the OP in handling the valuable title deeds and to pay Rs.10,00,000/- towards falsely assuring that they will sanction fresh loan.

2.      The brief facts of the complaint is as follows:

The complainant in the above said case are husband and wife.  Interse have approached the OP a non banking financial corporation, DHFL, K.R.Puram, Branch, Bangalore and both complainants had approached the OP for a composite loan facility.  OP after having satisfied with the Performa of the complainant and the site which was proposed to be purchased OP had considered the loan application and had sanctioned the composite loan to the complainant for an amount of Rs.24,80,841/- on 26.11.2017.  the aforesaid financial assistance availed by the complainant from the OP have been secured by way of mortgage of schedule property belonging to the complainant No.1, which has been purchased with a financial assistance of the OP by way of sale Deed bearing No. KRI-1-07472-2017-18 on 06.12.2017.  The said property was mortgaged by way of memorandum of facts of title deeds.  Therefore complainant requested the housing loan from the OP for construction which has been considered and sanctioned housing loan to the complainant for an amount of Rs.10,63,348/- on 28.04.2018. 

3.      Thereafter the complainant wanted to close the account by repaying the loan availed and upon request of the complainant on 18.12.2018 the foreclosure letter has been issued by the OP to the complainant.  But even after repayment of loan availed and lapse of more than eight months, the OP failed to return back the title deeds deposited and after persistent follow up and request, the complainant 1 was assured that the documents are not traceable and if traced it will be returned back.  OP has replied to email dated 23.12.2020 and 28.10.2020 by stating that the original documents are lost in transit and they will lodge FIR and publish in the newspaper and will furnish certified copy of last title deeds and their advocate will issue a certificate and print out of the emails exchanged. 

4.      Thereafter the complainant by such an act and keeping trust with the OP have sought for fresh loan, for that OP assured the complainant that since the property stood in the name of complainant No.1 and if gift the same to complainant No.2, the OP will sanction the fresh loan.  Believing that even though original title deed is lost and if a new title deed is created then they will have a good marketable title and they give loan against the said property. By making the complainant to believe the OP got executed the gift deed in favour of the complainant No.2 and after executing the gift deed in the name of the complainant No.2, the OP have not sanctioned the fresh loan to the complainant and OP failed to communicate the development of the same even inspite of the regular follow ups by the complainant.  By the act of the OP the complainants were not able to get any further loan from OP.  Hence this complaint.

5.      On the issuance of the notice, OP appeared through their counsel and filed version.  In the version, OP contended that complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  The OP have denied all the allegations of the complainant and have admitted that the documents which were deposited with the OP have been lost in transit and due to the said act, OP is ready to register an FIR and to publish in newspaper and obtained certified copy of the lost title deed and certificate from their advocate will be communicated to the complainant and also the OP admits that the 2^nd discharge of the mortgage was executed on 31.12.2020.  Further OP also contends that the title deeds is lost in transit and steps have been taken to trace the same and had not been successful.  When the said document was sent through FEDEX and during the transit it has been tampered and has been lost, hence  OP submits that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and prays for dismissal of the complaint.

6.      The complainant has led his evidence and got marked Exhibit A1 to A21.  OP as lead their evidence and got marked Ex.R1 to R19. Heard arguments of the complainant.  OP filed his written arguments. Perused records.  

7.      The points that would arise for our consideration are as under:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as sought for?
3. What order?

8.     Our answer to the above points are as under:

       Point No.1:- Affirmative in part

      Point No.2:- Affirmative in part.   

      Point No.3:-As per the final order.

REASONS

9. Point No.1 & 2:

It is admitted by both the parties that both the complainants 1 and 2 have availed composite loan with the OP bank and an amount of Rs.24,80,841/- was sanctioned by the OP on 26.11.2017.  During that time the property of the complainant was mortgaged through which the OP had sanctioned a housing loan to the complainant for an amount of Rs.10,63,348/- on 28.04.2018.  After complainants availing the said loan decided to pay the entire dues and complainant paid the loan availed with the OP and during which OP issued a foreclosure letter dated 18.12.2018 to the complainants. That complainant had made entire payment and entire outstanding loan on 25.01.2019 and 14.02.2020 and after which the complainant entrusted the OP to return back the deposit of title deeds which were pleaded at the time of sanctioning of the loan.  But when the complainant followed up but OP failed to return all the deposit of title documents.  The OP had stated that the documents which were deposited were not traceable.  Again the complainant No.1 requested for the original property documents and No-objection certificate of loan account while email dated 23.10.2020 the same was responded by the OP on 28.10.2020 by stating that the original documents are lost in transit and they would lodged FIR and will publish in the newspaper and will furnish certified copy of lost title deed and advocate will issue a certificate of print out of mail exchange among themselves and after which the OP done the legal formalities i.e., lodged FIR and have published in two daily newspaper and furnished certified copy of last title deeds and advocate had issued a certificate and further on the assurance of the OP the complainant when the title deeds were lost a new title  deed has been created with that intention the OP insisted the complainant to executed a fresh gift deed in the name of the complainant2 from complainant No.1. Believing the OP Complainant No.1 had executed a gift deed in favour of the complainant No.2 who is none other than the wife of complainant No.1, and after executing the gift deed the OP had not granted the fresh loan to the complainants stating that there is legal hurdle for the issue of a fresh loan.  With such act of the OP the complainants were frustrated.

10.        Further it is not in dispute that the original title deposits filed by the complainant with the OP in order to secure loan and they have created a MODTD by deposit of those documents with the OP.  It is the bounden duty of the OP company to keep these documents in safe custody and return them to the complainant on repayment of loan.  The very fact that the documents are still not traceable which clearly shows that the OP has been grossly negligent in rendering service to the complainant and due care was not taken to keep the documents in safe custody.  Hence it shows that the OP had utterly failed to keep the documents with due care.  Though the OP  states that they have followed legal formalities, if any of the legal formalities is not followed by the OP then OP has to comply the same with his cost i.e., lodged FIR, published in two daily newspaper, furnished certified copy of last title deeds an advocate had issued a certificate and mail communication between the parties, the complainant had to undergone mental agony due to the act of the OP.  Due to the foregoing reasons, the complainant has proved deficiency of service on OP.  Hence we deem that compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards the compensation, further the complainant has taken the assistance of the advocate to contest the case and hence we deem that an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the litigation would suffice.  Further it is proper to initiate a time bound for the compliance of the said order, hence 60 days is granted to comply the order of this commission.  Failing which the OP shall pay the above said amount along with interest at 9% p.a., after expiry of 60 days. Hence we answer Point NO.1 and 2 partly in the affirmative.

11.       POINT NO.3: Hence we proceed to pass the following 

O R D E R

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The OP is directed to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant and an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation.
3. The OP shall pay the amount within 60 days from the date of this order, failing which the OP shall pay interest at 9% p.a. on Rs.15,000/- after expiry of 60 days.
4. Furnish the copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 28^th day of July, 2022)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1 :

HAV*