Order No.  10  dt.  24/06/2019

        The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant for the purpose of purchasing a flat contacted the o.p. no.1 and obtained house building loan of Rs.11,47,500/-. After verifying the profile of the complainant o.p. no.1 sanctioned the loan and issued a bank draft. On the date of registration of the deed of conveyance i.e. on 30.3.17 and representative of o.p. no.1 duly received the original IGR on completion of the registration proceedings. The complainant duly paid the EMI regularly. The complainant for the purpose of obtaining a photocopy of the deed of conveyance went to o.p. bank and requested the Branch Manager to provide the same, but the Manager informed the complainant that the original IGR has been misplaced, for which the complainant asked to swear an affidavit format of which was provided to the complainant and in the said format in paragraph 4 it is clearly stated that the complainant will never claimed the deed with the original IGR. if available in future and the said IGR is not lying with any financial institution / bank. The complainant raised his objection regarding incorporation of the said fact in the said affidavit. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. to pay compensation and litigation cost.

            In spite of receipt of notices the o.ps. did not contest this case by filing w/v and as such, the case has proceeded ex parte against them.

            The complainant in order to substantiate his allegation has filed an affidavit on evidence whereby he stated that he for the purpose of purchasing a flat contacted the o.p. no.1 and obtained house building loan of Rs.11,47,500/-. After verifying the profile of the complainant o.p. no.1 sanctioned the loan and issued a bank draft. On the date of registration of the deed of conveyance i.e. on 30.3.17 and representative of o.p. no.1 duly received the original IGR on completion of the registration proceedings. The complainant duly paid the EMI regularly. The complainant for the purpose of obtaining a photocopy of the deed of conveyance went to o.p. bank and requested the Branch Manager to provide the same, but the Manager informed the complainant that the original IGR has been misplaced, for which the complainant asked to swear an affidavit format of which was provided to the complainant and in the said format in paragraph 4 it is clearly stated that the complainant can never claim the deed with the original IGR. if available in future and the said IGR is not lying with any financial institution / bank. The complainant raised his objection regarding incorporation of the said fact in the said affidavit. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case.

             It appears from the materials on record that the bank after coming to know of the fact that the original IGR is not lying in the custody of o.ps., thereafter, a diary was lodged at Hare Street P.S. and the complainant was also informed to swear an affidavit which the complainant refused to do so. The complainant was also informed that the bank’s lawyer Biman Kr. Das misplaced the original IGR. Ld. lawyer of the complainant has emphasized that since two years have already passed, therefore the original deed of conveyance may be destroyed, but no authentic document has been produced by the complainant to that effect. By that as it may, since the complainant has not liquidated the entire loan amount and the bank is realizing the EMI regularly, therefore the complainant will be entitled to get back the document i.e. deed of conveyance in question after payment of the entire amount. Since the original IGR has been lost from the custody of o.p. bank and the bank lodged a G.D. to that effect at Hare Street P.S. therefore a direction is necessary to be given to the bank for withdrawal of the said deed of conveyance in question from the registration office on placement of the copy of the judgment to the Registrar and for that purpose the bank can also swear an affidavit to that effect to the Registrar stating that the original IGR lost from their custody and after considering the same the Registrar should handover the deed of conveyance in question after recording the said fact in the official record and the original deed of conveyance may be handover to the representative of the bank. In view of the said fact we hold that since the complainant has not suffered any loss till the date of getting back the document after the payment of the entire dues, therefore we hold that the complainant has not suffered any major loss and only the o.p. bank should compensate the complainant by paying compensation of Rs.500/- and also to procure the original document from the office of the Registrar as per the direction given in the body of this judgment. Thus the case is disposed of accordingly.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the CC No.54/2019 is allowed ex parte with cost against the o.ps. The o.ps. are jointly and/or severally directed to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.200/- (Rupees two hundred) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 8% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.

            The o.p. no.1 is directed to swear an affidavit stating the fact that the original IGR has been lost from their custody and he should collect the deed of conveyance in question from the Office of the Registrar, Alipore after submission of the documents including the affidavit and the copy of this judgment and the Registrar is also directed to handover the deed of conveyance in question to o.p. bank after taking note of the fact as mentioned hereinabove.