DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

[Complaint Case No:389 of 2011]

                                                                Date of Institution  : 25.08.2011

                                                                                        Date of Decision    : 06.03.2012

                                                                                        --------------------------------------

Sh. Kuljit Singh son of Late Sh. Sham Singh resident of H.No.3518, Sector 71, Mohali.

….Complainant.

(VERSUS)

[1]        Punjab National Bank, Branch Sector 22-D, SCF No.1 and 2, Near Kiran Cinema, Chandigarh through its branch Manager/Chief Manager.

[2]        Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Sector 17-B, Bank Square, Chandigarh through its Circle Head.

[3]        Punjab National Bank, Head Office, 7, Bhikhaji Cama Place, new Delhi 110066 through its Managing Director.

---Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:            SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                  PRESIDENT

                        MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA                             MEMBER

                        SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU            MEMBER

Argued By:            Sh.  Tapan Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.

Sh. Ajay Sapehia, Advocate for the OPs.

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

[1]        Sh. Kuljit Singh has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OPs be directed:-

i)                    To refund a sum of Rs.50,000/- paid as earnest money;

ii)                  To pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- spent on repeated visits and telephone calls made to OPs;

iii)                 To pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony;

iv)                To pay a sum of Rs.31,000/- as costs of litigation.

[2]                    In brief, the case of the complainant is that he was employee of OPs. He retired in the month of October 2009 after attaining the age of superannuation.

                        The case of the complainant is that he wanted to construct a house on his plot bearing No.3581 situated in Sector 71, Mohali. So, he applied for loan to the OPs. In the month of February 1996, a loan of Rs.1,50,000/- Lacs was sanctioned in his favour. The said loan was secured by effecting equitable mortgage of the plot mentioned above. So, the complainant deposited the Title Deed and other documents related to the said plot with the OPs vide receipt (Annexure C-1).

                        According to the complainant, he repaid the entire loan along with interest in the year 2006. So, he requested the OPs to return the Title Deed and other documents relating to the said property but the OPs put of the matter on pretext or the other. It has further been pleaded by the complainant that in the month of June 2009, he wanted to purchase the property at Ludhiana. He executed an agreement for the purchase of the said property and paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- as earnest money. He wanted to pay the remaining amount by raising loan from some Bank. As the complainant was having only one property i.e. House No.3518, Sector 71, Mohali, so, he requested the OP to handover the Title Deed so that he could raise the loan for purchasing the said property at Ludhiana but the said documents were not given to him as a result of which, the said transaction could not be completed and the earnest money paid by the complainant was forfeited.

                        It has further been pleaded that the Complainant requested the OPs repeatedly to return the documents vide letters dated 9.10.2010, 21.2.2011, 6.3.2011, 23.3.2011, 24.3.2011, 20.6.2011, 21.6.2011 and 29.7.2011 (Annexures C-5 to C-12), but to no avail.

                        Thus, according to the Complainant, non-return of the Title Deed along with other documents amounts to deficiency in service. So, the present complainant has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

[3]                    In the joint written statement filed by OPs, it is submitted that a loan of Rs.1,50,000/- was disbursed to the Complainant, and the Complainant had deposited the Title deed of House No. 3518, Sector 71, Mohali, as security. It has also been admitted that the complainant has repaid the entire loan and nothing is outstanding against him. The case of OPs is that the complainant was transferred to various places after the disbursement of the loan to him, and on the request of the complainant, his loan account was transferred to the Branches of his postings. Every time, all the documents concerning the loan were transferred to those Branches. It has further been pleaded that ‘No Due Certificate’ was issued to the complainant on 19.02.2006. However, the complainant approached the OPs with a request to give computerized NDC and a request letter from the Bank for deleting the lien of Punjab National Bank. So, according to the OPs, ‘No Due Certificate’ was issued to the complainant again along with the other documents. It has further been pleaded that as the complainant has repaid the loan and as ‘No Due Certificate’ has been issued to him, now there is no relationship of consumer and service provider in between the parties. It has further been pleaded that the complaint is barred by limitation as the loan was repaid by the complainant as far as back in the year 2006 and the right to sue had accrued to him at that time. It has further been pleaded that the Title Deed in question is not traceable. It appears that taking unnecessary advantage of his employment with the Bank he took away the title deeds and other documents without issuing receipts to this effect. According to OPs, in the normal course, it is not possible that a mortgager would not raise the demand for the original Title Deed for five years. It has further been pleaded that as per the guidelines, if the Title Deed is misplaced or lost from the Bank, in that case, the Bank is to lodge the case with the police and obtain a certified copy of the Title Deed. According to the OPs, the Bank has completed all the formalities but the complainant has refused to accept the certified copy of the Title Deed for the reasons best known to him. Thus, according to OPs, it has fulfilled its obligation and therefore, there is no deficiency on their part and the complaint deserves dismissal.

[4]                    We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

[5]                    Admittedly, the loan, which was taken by the Complainant, has been returned, and nothing is outstanding against the Complainant. It is also the admitted case of the OPs that at the time of disbursement of the loan, the Complainant was asked to deposit the Title Deed of House No. 3581, Sector 71, Mohali, and the Complainant had deposited the Title Deeds of the said house as security of the said loan.

[6]                    The case of the Complainant is that despite the fact he has paid the entire loan, the Title Deed has not been returned to him, which amounts to deficiency in service. On the other hand, the case of the OPs is that the Complainant was employee of the Bank, and it appears that he took the documents, without executing the receipt. Taking advantage of this fact, he is unnecessarily harassing the Bank by making demand of the return of the documents. No evidence, whatsoever, has been placed on record by the OPs to prove that the Title Deed and other documents deposited with the Bank, at the time of disbursement of the loan, were returned to him. It is unbelievable that the Bank will return such important documents without obtaining receipts from the consumer. For the sake of arguments, even if it is admitted that the documents were taken away by the Complainant, without executing the receipts, at least the Bank was at liberty to place on record the affidavit of the person who delivered the said documents to the Complainant. In the absence of any evidence to prove that the documents were returned to the Complainant, the version of the Complainant has to be accepted, which is supported by affidavit. In these circumstances, it has duly been proved that the Title Deed and other documents deposited by the Complainant to the Bank, at the time of the disbursement of the loan, have not been returned to him. It amounts to deficiency in service as has been held in the cases titled as C.L. Khanna Versus Dena Bank, S.C. & National Commission Consumer Law Cases (2005-2008) 320; Doson Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., & Ors. Versus United Bank of India & Anr., I (2003) C.P.J. 214 (N.C); Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited Versus Santha Sundararajan, IV (2008) C.P.J. 94 (N.C.).

[7]                    Faced with the situation, it was vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the OPs that the complaint is barred by limitation and deserves to be dismissed on this score. It was argued by the learned counsel that admittedly, the loan was repaid in the year 2006, and “No Due Certificate” was issued to him on 19.02.2006. According to the learned counsel for the OPs. The cause of action accrued on that day. So, the complaint is barred by limitation and deserves dismissal on this score. This argument of the learned counsel for the OPs has no force. In case titled as The Federal Bank Ltd. Versus Thomas Varghese Kottackattathu, I (2000) CPJ 155, it has been held that the limitation would start from the date of refusal to return the documents. In the present case, there is no document on record to prove that the OPs had refused to return the documents to the Complainant on any specific date. On the other hand, the case of the Complainant is that the OPs are putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. Even a DDR regarding the loss of the document was got registered by the OPs on 11.05.2011. So, for the first time, the Complainant came to know about the loss of the document on that date. The present complaint was filed on 25.08.2011. Hence, the complaint is within limitation.

[8]                    From above discussion, it is abundantly clear that there is deficiency on the part of the OPs, as it has failed to return the Title Deed and other documents to the Complainant, which were deposited by him at the time of disbursement of the loan.  So, the present complaint is allowed and the OPs are, jointly & severally, directed to:-

(i)            Give public notice in the newspaper regarding the loss of the Title Deed;

(ii)        Help the Complainant in obtaining the duplicate/ certified title deed and other documents and to bear cost to this effect.

(iii)       Pay to Complainant an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment;

(iv)            Pay Rs.7,000/- as litigation costs;.

[9]                    The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt; thereafter, the opposite parties shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on the aforesaid amount of compensation (Rs.50,000/-), besides payment of costs and compliance of other directions.

[10]                  Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

06th March, 2012.                                                                                      

Sd/-

 (LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER