Per Hon’ble Member Partha Kumar Basu

The instant consumer case has been instituted by the complainant no 1 and 2 namely Smt. Malabika Halder, W/o Sri Balaram Halder and Sri Balaram Halder S/o Sri Kartick Chandra Halder u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite parties namely Punjab National Bank, Sirakole branch (PNB) OP1 and United Bank of India, Sirakole branch (UBI) OP2 praying for reliefs like return of original sale deed, else, to bear the registration cost for execution of original sale deed of respective parties alongwith compensations and cost.

In gist, it is adduced on affidavit in the complaint petition filed by the complainants against the opposite parties – UBI and PNB whereby and whereunder the complainants have prayed for an order on the OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- and another Rs 20,000/- by way of compensation and the cost of litigation of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainants. Briefly stated the facts of the case is that complainant had obtained a housing loan from UBI, Sirakole Branch on 11.10.2012 for Rs. 15,00,000/- with 15 years tenure against a security for repayment of that loan and had deposited their original copy of registered sale deed dated 10.11.2006 drawn in the name of these complainants. The Loan amount was repaid by complainants in full and no dues certificate dated 18.04.2022 was issued by the bank to the complainant. In the mean time, UBI got merged with PNB followed by newly formed PNB, Sirakole branch. After receiving the no dues certificate, the complainants claimed on 28.06.2022 return of their original registered sale deed which he had been kept as deposit in the bank custody as security for the said loan. However, inspite of repeated requests including on 18.08.2022, the original sale deed of the said mortgaged property was not returned by the bank to the complainants. It is the case of the complainants that the land of their property is of 7.17 decimal and a costly ‘bastu’ type of land upon which a 3- storied modern building admeasuring around 4800 sq.ft. is situated which they intend to sell out and start residing at Kolkata city for the purpose of education of their son after gathering the sale proceeds. But the plan got hindered due to non-availability of the sale deed of the property in original as the prospective buyers often devaluate such properties. It is the case of the complainants that the shortcomings have been communicated to the OPs from time to time but they failed to comply and remained silent regarding compliance. The complainants therefore filed the instant complaint petition for gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OP banks, for getting proper relief/reliefs with a prayer to return the original sale deed as well as grant of compensations for physical and mental harassment and the cost of litigation.

In the W/V the OP1 bank admitted the contents of the complaint. It is the admitted position of the OP1 and there is no quarrel between the contesting parties about fats of the instant case. The OP1 bank in their W/V and evidence filed on affidavit submits that General diary has been filed at local police station due to shifting of bank premises and some natural calamity at the UBI Amtala branch being possible reason making that original deed untraceable. The OP1 bank therefore prays for a dispensation to get away with providing a certified copy of that sale deed and refused any other claim as filed by the complainants being their petition as vexatious and harassive. 

The OP1 (PNB) contested the case by filing W/V while the OP2 (UBI) was expunged from the cause title as per order no. 8 date 20.03.2023.

The arguments as advanced by both the sides were heard at length and in full on 02.12.2024. Perused all records and documents as made available.

The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is an Act of the Parliament of India. It repeals and replaces the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 effective from July 2020. The Consumer Protection Acts, either 1986 or 2019, are beneficial legislations and a liberal interpretation has to be given to a common consumer. Hence, this commission is inclined to allow this complaint petition, although filed under the C.P Act 1986, be adjudicated under the scopes and meaning of C.P Act 2019.

This commission after considering the materials on record hold that inspite of the complainants repaying the entire loan amount, for which no dues certificate was issued by the Bank, the original sale deed deposited by the complainants as security against the loan amount, was not returned by OP bank, which amounts to gross deficiency in service. It is a well settled preposition of law and several judgments have been passed by the Hon’ble National Commission to this effect that loss of original sale deed deposited by consumer as security for loan amounts to gross deficiency in service by Bank for which consumer is entitled for adequate compensation.

In an Appeal case as per the Order of Hon’ble National Commission on the Appeal in the case of Allahabad Bank Versus Amar Lal Bansal since reported in 2018 (2) CLT (NC) 96  in Paragraphs-2, 3 & 4 it is held as follows:

“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.”

This Commission also placed their reliance upon another Appeal case wherein by an Order of the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of  State Bank of India Vs. Vallu Sowjanya (2020) (4) CPJ (NC) 235 in paragraph no. 12, it is held as follows :

“It is least expected from the bank to hold an enquiry, fix responsibility for the loss of original sale deed and take appropriate action against the employees found responsible for the loss of original sale deed, with liberty to realise the compensation amount paid to complainant.

Appeal is devoid of any merit and is accordingly, dismissed with enhancement of compensation amount to Rs. 50,000/- to be paid to the complainant within 60 days from the date of receipt of order passed by this Commission failing which interest @9%  p.a shall become payable.”

Be that as it may, keeping in view of the above observations, relying upon aforesaid Judgements of the Hon’ble NCDRC and for finality of the litigation, it gets established that there is a deficiency in extending services on the part of OP1 Bank and accordingly we are constrained to allow the instant consumer case against OP no 1 Bank on contest with cost.

It is apparent that the bank didn't have the title deeds in their possession although the complainants had deposited the same with the bank as mortgage. Hence, the bank may not be in a position to return it and if an order directing the OP bank to return the original title deed is passed then that may remain un-executable.

 Hence,

It is

                                                                                             ORDERED

1. That the OP1 is directed to issue a certificate, reflecting that the original title deed of the suit property deposited by the complainants got lost / misplaced (as the case may be) from the custody of the OP1. The certificate shall be issued within ‘eight’ weeks from the date of this order.

2. It is apparent that the complainants have to seek a certified copy of the title deed of the suit property and it is a common knowledge that the value of the property gets diminished when the original deed is not made available before the prospective buyers. The complainants, therefore, needs to be compensated for the loss of the perceived value of the property. There is no method to calculate the actual loss of the property. The OP1 bank, therefore, is directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) to the complainants, keeping in view that the total value of the suit property a non-agriculture land with superstructure was Rs. 7,00,000/- in 18 years back as per registered deed of 10.11.2006. The compensation amount shall be paid within ‘eight’ weeks to the complainants, failing which the OP1 is liable to pay a simple interest on this amount @ 9% per annum from the date of this order till the date of actual payment.

3. That the Opposite party no 1 is further directed to pay a litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) only to the complainants within ‘eight’ weeks from the date of this order.

The Complainants are at liberty to put the order in execution, in case of non-compliance of order by the OPs within stipulated period of time.

Thus the consumer case stands disposed off with above directions.

Registrar of this Commission is directed to arrange uploading of this Final Order at www.confonet.nic.in at once.

Later,

After passing the judgement the OP filed BNA which be kept with the record.