Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/288/2015

UCO Bank - Complainant(s)

Versus

Arvind Kumar Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjiv Gupta KKR

09 Nov 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

 

First Appeal No.	:	288 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	05.11.2015
Date of Decision	:	09.11.2015

 

UCO Bank, SCF No.3-4, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh through its Chief Manager.

……Appellant/Opposite Party.

Versus

1. Arvind Kumar Singh S/o Late Sh. Ram Parvesh Singh,
2. Gita Singh W/o Sh. Arvind Kumar Singh,

Both R/o House No.1630, Saini Vihar, Phase-III, Baltana, Distt. SAS Nagar (Mohali).

....Respondents/Complainants.

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                SMT. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

               

Argued by: Sh. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.

PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER

            This appeal is directed against the order dated 23.09.2015 rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (in short District Forum only) vide which, it partly allowed the complaint filed by the complainants (now respondents) and directed the Opposite Party (now appellant) as under:-

“15.      In view of the above discussion, the complaint filed by the complainants is partly allowed. The OP is directed  :-

(i)     To issue an appropriate certificate to the complainants that the documents of title received by it in respect of the plot in question were lost by it.  The OP shall also get published an advertisement in two national daily newspapers about the loss of the title documents of the property of complainant No.2 at its own expenses. The OP shall also write to the concerned departments about the loss of property documents and reimburse the expenses in obtaining the certified/duplicate copies from them to the complainants. OP would also render all necessary assistance to the complainants in getting the record straightened with the Registrar where the sale deed was registered.  OP would also take all other steps, as may be required by the concerned authorities, to safeguard the interest of the complainants.

(ii)    To make payment of an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainants as compensation for deficiency in service and negligence on its part on account of the loss of the original title deeds of complainant No.2.  Out of the said amount, complainant No.2 shall be entitled to the share of Rs.1,50,000/- and the remaining amount of Rs.50,000/- shall be payable to complainant No.1.

(iii)   To also make payment of an amount of Rs.11,000/- to the complainants towards costs of litigation.

16.        This order be complied with by OP within two months from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which it shall make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization, apart from compliance of directions at Sr.No.(i) & (iii) above.”

2.             The facts, in brief, are that the complainants cleared the whole loan amount in November 2013 and thereafter when they demanded the property papers, the Opposite Party informed that the same had been lost.  Complainant No.1 wrote letter dated 23.12.2013 (Annexure C-1) to the Opposite Party to issue ‘No dues certificate’ and further return original plot deed. The Opposite Party issued No Due Certificate on 23.12.2013 (Annexure C-2). Thereafter Complainant No.1 wrote letters dated 10.2.2014 and 4.4.2014 (Annexure C-3 & C-4) for return of original plot deed, but, nothing was done. The complainant approached the Banking Ombudsman vide complaint dated 8.4.2014 (Annexure C-5) and vide order dated 31.7.2014 (Annexure C-6), the Banking Ombudsman directed the Opposite Party to lodge FIR or insert an advertisement in local newspaper, which would corroborate the facts of loss of title deed by the bank, recreate the document/title deed at its own expense and also to compensate the complainants as per compensation policy.  Subsequently, the complainants received a letter dated 14.8.2014 (Annexure C-8) from the Opposite Party seeking their consent. In reply, complainant No.1 vide letter dated 19.8.2014 raised certain queries to the Opposite Party. Thereafter, complainant No.1 through his advocate issued a legal notice dated 16.12.2014 to the Opposite Party asking it to handover original sale deed and recreate new one at its own expense and to pay compensation etc., but, to no avail.  It was stated that due to misplacement of original property papers by the Opposite Party, the complainants would not get loan from any bank. The complainants are not in a position to sell the property at present market price in absence of original property papers.  It was further stated that there was every possibility that any third person who gets hands on original property papers might have misused the same by selling the property to third person. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Party amounted to deficiency, in rendering service and indulgence into unfair trade practice.
3.       When the grievance of the complainants was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, seeking various reliefs.
4.       The Opposite Party, in its written version, stated that the complainants first applied for loan under UCO Shelter Scheme on 10.8.2005 for construction of ground floor of the premises, which was sanctioned for Rs.4 lacs. In the said account, complainant No.2 was the co-borrower and had created equitable mortgage of her property by deposit of title deeds. The said loan was adjusted by complainant No.1 on 9.11.2013. In the meantime, complainant No.1 and his son applied for a fresh term loan for construction of first floor on 3.3.2010 and his wife (complainant No.2) became the guarantor which was sanctioned for Rs.3 lacs. The property was remortgaged by constructive deposit of title deeds. The said loan was adjusted on 14.12.2013. It was admitted that the title deeds were not traceable. It was also admitted that the complainants filed a complaint before the Banking Ombudsman and that the same was decided.  It was further stated that in terms of the order of the Ombudsman, the Opposite Party had offered to create the title documents i.e. gift deed to be executed by the present owner namely Smt. Gita Singh in favour of her sons S/Sh. Abhishek Singh and Anupam Kumar Singh and had asked complainant No.1 to give his consent, but, nothing was done. It was further stated that the complainants had been unnecessarily apprehensive and compensation was to be given for the actual loss caused and not on imagination and hypothesis. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party, nor did it indulge into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
5.       The complainants filed replication, wherein, they reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint and repudiated the same, contained in the written versions of the Opposite Party. 
6.       The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
7.       After hearing the Counsel for the parties and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum partly allowed the complaint, as stated above, in the opening para of the instant order. 
8.       Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party.
9.       We have heard the Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party, at the preliminary stage, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 
10.       The Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party submitted that the housing loans stood adjusted and cleared on 9.11.2013 and 14.12.2013 respectively and No Due Certificate was issued to respondent No.1 vide letter dated 23.12.2013. He further submitted that the appellant in consultation with the respondents had offered to get the gift deed executed at its expenses vide letter dated 14.8.2014. He further submitted that even the recreated title deed has been obtained from the Sub-Registrar, Derabassi and handed over to the respondents. He further submitted that the only grouse of the complainants left, was with regard to payment of compensation, as per order of the Banking Ombudsman. He further submitted that, instead of approaching Banking Ombudsman, with regard to directions regarding payment of compensation, the complainants wrongly approached the District Forum. The District Forum was wrong, in entertaining the complaint and allowing the same, despite the fact that the same was not maintainable before it. He further submitted that, as such, the order of the District Forum ,being illegal and invalid, was liable to be set aside.
11.       After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, raised by the appellant/Opposite Party, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, at the preliminary stage, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. The core question that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the District Forum was right, in entertaining the instant consumer complaint and allowing the same, while granting compensation, holding the appellant deficient, in rendering service or not.  The Banking Ombudsman had passed the following orders dated 31.07.2014 (Annexure C-6) :-

“Please refer to your above complaint.

2. In this connection, bank has been advised to lodge FIR with the police authorities or insert an advertisement in the local news paper which will corroborate the facts of loss or title deed by the bank.

3. Bank will also recreate the documents/title deed at its own expenses.

4. Bank has also been advised to compensate you as per the compensation policy of the bank.

5. However, you are advised that if your grievance is not resolved you can approach Banking Ombudsman again.

In view of the above, your complaint is being closed under clause 13(a) of the BOS 2006, which is not appealable.

This is issued as per orders of the Banking Ombudsman.”

12. It is the case of the respondents/complainants that their original property papers were misplaced by the appellant (Bank) and they were not compensated in terms of orders passed by the Banking Ombudsman. It is also the case of the respondents/complainants that they never consented to the proposal of the Bank to get the Gift Deed executed in favour of their sons. When the order of the Banking Ombudsman was not complied with by the appellant/Opposite Party in letter and spirit, in our considered opinion, the respondents/ complainants were very well within their rights to file the consumer complaint, moreso when the appellant/Opposite Party failed to compensate the respondents/complainants in accordance with the Policy of the Bank. Even no evidence has been produced on record that the respondents/ complainants had consented to get the gift deed executed at the instance of the Bank. Not only this, the appellant/Opposite Party did not publish in the newspapers about loss of title documents of the property of complainant No.2. The District Forum rightly held in Para 14 of its order, inte-ralia,  as under:-

 “……The OP has failed to either trace the original sale deed or recreate the original sale deed in favour of complainant No.2. When the original sale deed was in favour of complainant No.2, the alternative suggested by OP for execution of the gift deed in favour of children of complainant No.2 at the expenses of the OP is obviously not acceptable to the complainants. It is quite evident that the OP has not rendered necessary assistance to the complainants in providing a legal proof on the basis of which complainant No.2 can be held to be the owner of the property in question. The OP has also not published advertisement in the newspapers about the loss of title documents of the property of complainant No.2. The contention of the complainants that complainant No.2 is not in a position to sell the property at the present market price in the absence of original property papers carries weight. Due to misplacement of the original documents, there is also a risk of misuse of the original property papers by somebody else. Despite the order dated 31.7.2014 passed by the Ombudsman, OP has not made payment of any compensation for the loss of documents to complainant No.2 so far. Considering all these circumstances, we feel that both the complainants have suffered incalculable loss on account of the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  The trouble and efforts to get the documents reconstructed is immense to be borne by the complainants besides great mental stress, anxiety and agony which they have already suffered.”

 

13. It may be stated here that in a similar case titled as C.L. Khanna    Vs Dena Bank, Original Petition No.70 of  2002, decided on 02.09.2005, the complainant i.e. C. L. Khanna, had filed a complaint before the Hon’ble National Commission, against the Opposite Party i.e. Dena Bank, with a prayer to direct it to return  the  title deeds  of the gifted property, which were pledged with it, as a simple mortgage, deposited  on 21^st January, 1973, but were not returned by it (Bank) on the ground  that   the same were lost. In that case, the complainant had also sought compensation and settlement of his loan account. In the said case also, the Opposite Party i.e. Dena Bank, took similar objections, as have been taken in the instant case by the appellant i.e. the complaint was time barred; the complaint was not maintainable; and that the complainant could not seek compensation for deficiency in rendering service, before the District Forum, once he had availed remedy of Banking Ombudsman. The Hon’ble National Commission, while setting aside all the objections raised by the Bank, referred to above, allowed the complaint and granted compensation, to the tune of Rs.1 lac, besides costs of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant, holding the Bank deficient in rendering service. Apart from this, Bank was directed for not charging interest on the loan amount and to publish an advertisement in the newspaper.. The principle of law laid in C.L. Khanna’s case (supra), is fully applicable to the instant case. It is, therefore, held that the consumer complaint was maintainable before the District Forum. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
14. The title deed of the property is an important and vital document. If the complainants wish to dispose of the property, the prospective buyer is likely to entertain apprehension about the title of the property. Misplacement of title documents is certainly a deficiency and negligence attributable to the appellant/Opposite Party, for which, the District Forum has rightly awarded an amount of Rs.2 Lacs as compensation to them (respondents/complainants) besides other directions/reliefs.
15. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion,  the District Forum was right, in allowing the consumer complaint, in the manner, referred to above, while holding the appellant, deficient in rendering service.
16.       No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party.
17.       In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality, warranting the interference of this Commission.
18.       For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order dated 23.09.2015 passed by the District Forum is upheld.
19.       Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
20.       The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

November 09, 2015.

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 [DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

 

 

 [PADMA PANDEY]

 MEMBER

Ad