The complainant/respondent took a loan of Rs.6 lakh from the petitioner Bank for a period of 15 years. The loan was repaid within 5-6 years. In order to secure the loan, the complainant had deposited the Sale Deed in respect of his property No.RZB-17, Subhash Park, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi with the petitioner Bank. However, the Sale Deed was not returned to the complainant even after repayment of the loan the same having been lost/misplaced by the petitioner Bank. The complainant had allegedly entered into an agreement to sell the aforesaid property to one Mr. Pawan    Gulati for a sum of Rs.40 lakh and received an earnest money of  Rs.40 lakh from him. Since the transaction could not fructify in the absence of the original Sale Deed which the petitioner Bank had lost, the complainant claims to have paid the double earnest money to the buyer. The complainant thereafter approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint seeking compensation quantified at Rs.10 lakh.

2.      The complaint was resisted by the Bank which admitted the deposit of the Sale Deed of the immoveable property with it and the fact that it had lost the said vital document.

3.      The District Forum, directed the petitioner Bank to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation and also execute the re-conveyance deed of the property. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner Bank approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed, the petitioner Bank is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

4.      The only grievance of the petitioner Bank before this Commission is that the compensation awarded by the Fora below is on the higher side. I, however, find no merit in the contention. The immoveable property in Delhi is a very valuable asset and no one will purchase an immovable property for its full value unless the original documents of the property are delivered to him by the seller. If someone agrees to buy an immoveable property without receiving all the previous Title Deeds of the property, he will purchase the same at a price much lesser than the price it is fetch if sold along with all previous Title Deeds. Therefore, it can hardly be disputed that there has been  substantial erosion in the current saleable value of the property on account of the petitioner Bank having lost the original Title Deed of the property. The compensation awarded by the District Forum is rather on the lower side and there is absolutely no scope for reducing the same. No other contention is advanced before me. The revision petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.