Delhi

North East

CC/30/2021

MR. HARISH KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

BANK OF BARODA - Opp.Party(s)

SHANTANU BHARDWAJ

04 Oct 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.30/21

In the matter of:

 

	Mr. Harish Kumar, S/o Late Sh. Bal Kishan Dass, R/o C-10/85, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi 110053	Complainant
	Versus
	Bank of Baroda, Through its Managing Director & CEO Baroda Corporate Centre, C-26, G-Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Sandra (East), Mumbai 400051   Also At: Bank of Baroda B-1/12A, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi 110053   Also At: Bank of Baroda C-14, Ground Floor, Dilshad Colony Delhi 110095	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                         DATE OF ORDER  :

12.02.2021 03.08.2023 04.10.2023

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

 

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that in the year 2010, Complainant availed the Overdraft limit vide Overdraft account bearing no. 31680400000025 from the Opposite Party Bank having its branch at Dilshad Garden, Delhi. The said overdraft limit was in the joint name of the Complainant and his wife Mrs. Kamlesh Kumari. It is his case that for availing the said overdraft limit the Complainant mortgaged his property bearing no.   C-10/85, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi. It is his case that he deposited all the original documents of his property with the Opposite Party Bank. The detail of the said documents is as under:

S.NO.	Particulars	Pages
	Perpetual Lease Deed dated 16.02.1977	5 pages
	Conveyance Deed dated 11.07.2000	3 pages
	Allotment Letter of year 1976	1 page
	Certificate of possession of year 1976	1 page
	Possession letter of year 1976	1 page
	DDA Site plan of plot	1 page
	Building plan	1 page
	General Power of Attorney dated 11.11.1992	2 pages
	Agreement to sell 11.11.1992	2 pages
	Sale Receipt dated 11.11.1992	1 page
	Deed of will dated 11.11.1992	1 page
12.	MCD Mutation receipt	1 page
Total		20 pages

 

2. It is his case that on 09.10.2014, Complainant requested the Opposite Party Bank to transfer the said overdraft account from Dilshad Garden Branch to Yamuna Vihar Branch of Opposite Party Bank. It is his case that according to the request of the Complainant on 18.12.2014, Dilshad Garden Branch of Opposite Party Bank issued forwarding letter stating therein that this branch had enclosed all the original documents of the Complainant with the said letter and forwarded the file to the Yamuna Vihar Branch of Opposite Party Bank. It is his case that on 23.07.2020, Complainant deposited the entire outstanding amount in the said overdraft account towards full and final settlement. After that Complainant requested the Opposite Party  Bank to close the said account and refund excess balance to him and return /release his all security documents including the original title deeds of Complainant’s property situated at C-10/85, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi. Thereafter, on the same date, Branch Manager of Yamuna Vihar Branch forwarded a letter to the Dilshad Garden Branch of the Opposite Party Bank for releasing the original property papers of the Complainant. It is his case that various letters were exchanged between the Yamuna Vihar Branch and Dilshad Garden branch of Opposite Party Bank but they failed to return the original documents of the property of the Complainant. Complainant sent various mails to the Opposite Party Bank and also made written complaints to the Opposite Party Bank but they did not give any heed. Complainant sent a legal notice dated 08.09.2020 to the Opposite Party Bank and Opposite Party Bank gave flimsy and vexatious reply dated 03.10.2020 stating therein that the Opposite Party had lodged lost report with the police vide LR No. 573188/2020 at PS. Crime branch and would assist the Complainant in getting certified copies of the documents lost by them. Hence, this shows the deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party Bank. Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Party Bank to make intensive search and return the original title documents of Property and Rs. 30,00,000/- on account of mental harassment and deficiency of service.

Case of the Opposite Party

3. The Opposite Party contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that the Complainant has filed this complaint in order to extort money from the bank. It is admitted that the title deeds of the property of the Complainant were submitted by the Complainant with the Opposite Party Bank. It is stated that during the process of transfer of the loan account of the Complainant from one branch to the other, the property/title deeds of the property of the Complainant were misplaced. It is stated that the Opposite Party Bank, thereafter, lodged a complaint with the Delhi Police. It is stated that the following documents were submitted by the Complainant with the bank:-

1. Perpetual Lease Deed dated 16.02.1977.
2. Certificate of Possession of year 1976.
3. Possession letter of year 1976.
4. DDA Site Plan of Plot.
5. Occupancy Certificate.
6. General Power of Attorney dated 11.11.1992.
7. Agreement to sell dated 11.11.1992.
8. Deed of Will dated 11.11.1992.

4. It is stated that the complaint is without any merit and the same should be dismissed.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party

5. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

6. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party

7. To support its case Opposite Party has filed affidavit of Shri Rohtash Lal Gangwani, Chief Manager, wherein, he has supported the case of the Opposite Party as mentioned in the written statement.

 

Arguments & Conclusion

8. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the Parties and we have also perused the file. The case of the Complainant is that he had taken Overdraft facility in respect of the loan from the Opposite Party Bank and he had submitted the title deeds of his property with the Opposite Party Bank. It is his case that he has repaid the loan but his title deeds were not returned to him by the Opposite Party Bank.
9. From the perusal of the record, it is revealed that the following facts are admitted by the Opposite Party:-

1. That the Complainant had taken overdraft facility/loan from the   Opposite Party Bank.
2.  That the Complainant had submitted the title deeds of his property bearing no. C-10/85, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi.
3.  That the Complainant had repaid the entire loan.
4. That the title deeds of the property of the Complainant were not returned to him as the same had been lost/misplaced.

10. Thus, it is clear that the facts are not disputed. The Complainant has not received the title deeds of his property even after repayment of the entire loan. This is the clear case of deficiency of service. It is a well known fact that in case, one person does not have the original title deeds of his property. The value of his property decreases. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Opposite Party is directed to make a payment of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the Complainant for loss of his original title deeds of the property along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. The Opposite Party shall also pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the Complainant on account of mental harassment and litigation expenses along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.
11. Order announced on 04.10.2023.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)		(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)		(President)