THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF APRIL, 2023
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.08/2021
PRESENT
SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, MEMBER
1. Vittal M.Poonja,
S/o Mundappa Poonja,
Aged about 72 years,
... Complainant/s
2. Nethravathi,
W/o Vittal Poonja,
Aged about 59 years,
Both are owners of hotel
Vandana palace,
Residing at RS No.73//3/4/5,
Kanakadas Circle Road,
Gandhi Nagar, Belagavi-560 016
(By Sri.Anatha Ram Singh, Advocate)
-Versus-
Canara Bank,
(Earlier Syndicate Bank)
Rept. By its Senior Branch
Manager/Authorized Signatory,
Kittur Rani Chennamma Circle, ... Opposite Party/s
Club Road Branch,
Belagavi-590 001
(By Sri.T.P.Muthanna, Advocate)
O R D E R
BY SRI.RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
The complaint filed by this complainant alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in not returning the original documents even after clearance of the loan and claim for a compensation of tune of Rs.6,00,00,000/- (Rs.Six Crores) and also claim for refund of Rs.1,65,00,000/- which was collected without any reason and also refund of Rs.50,000/- which was retained by OP along with a compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,00,000/- towards mental agony and loss of income.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is that the complainant and his wife are the owners of immovable property situated survey No.73/3, 73/4 and 73/5 Khasbag, Gandhinagar opposite to port lake Belagavi measuring in all 18 Guntas with building (Hotel Vandana palace Consisting of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5th floor and the basement is for car parking). In order to construct in the above hotel this complainants have availed loan to the tune of Rs.1,84,70,000/- from Opposite Party bank in the year 1998-1999 and the building was valued at 3.16 crores from Opposite Party Bank themselves. Thereafter, the complainants have constructed the hotel measuring 1825.25 sq.mtr. with a built up area of 4749.64 sq.mtr consisting of basement, ground, first, second, third and fourth floors. The basement is used for car parking and utility and other purposes. The ground floor used for reception hall, centrally air-conditioned restaurant cum bar and restaurant. The first floor consist of a party hall and 24 rooms in each of the second, third and fourth floors. The complainants have constructed this hotel for their lively hood as there is no any other source of income. The complainants have mortgaged the said property to avail the loan from Opposite Party bank
The complainant further alleged that in view of non-payment of the loan, the OP Bank initiated the recovery proceeding under securitization and re-construction of Financial Asset and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (SERFAFAESI Act) after taking formal possession of the mortgaged property which was given as a surety. There afterwards the OP further put to sale the property in public auction. One Vasu.P.Shetty is the highest bidder whose bid was accepted resulting into issuance of sale certificate. However, this complainant challenged the said sale by filing application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). The said appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, the complainants filed Writ Petition No.41445/2004 before the Hon’ble High court of Karnataka against the order of the DRT. The said Writ Petition was also dismissed.
Aggrieved by the said order, the complainants appealed before the Division Bench by filing Writ Appeal vide No.6368/2011. After hearing the said writ appeal the Hon’ble Division bench set aside the sale of the property made by OP in favour of one Sri.Vasu.P.Shetty for the reason that OP’s have not complied the required provisions to sale of the property by public auction i.e. 30 days time was mandatorily required under Rule of 8 or 9 SERFAFAESI Act was not given. Concededly, the public notice was published in the newspaper on 28.04.2006, fixing the date for the sale as 8.05.2006, inviting tenders from prospective buyers at 2 p.m on 6.05.2006. Thus, the OP has violated the provisions of SERFAFAESI Act. Subsequently, the person who had purchased the said property along with this OP approached the Hon’ble Supreme court against the order passed by the Division bench of Karnataka in Civil Appeal No.4679/2014 and Civil appeal No.4680/2014 respectively. After perusing the entire evidence and considering the realm of the facts upheld the order passed by the Divisional Bench of High Court of Karnataka.
Further, the complainant alleged that the first auction sale notice published on 11.09.2004 and 15.10.2004, the reserve price of the auction sale was fixed at Rs.3.50 crores, the notice admittedly is within the 30 days. At that stage, these complainants have filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka challenging the above on 12.10.2004 i.e. three days before proposed public auction sale. The Hon’ble High court of Karnataka though not granted stay against scheduled auction, it granted stay against the confirmation of sale. It is noticed that none of the persons came to participate in the public auction and it went unsuccessful. Thereafter, the OP bank issued a fresh notice of auction sale of the property fixing the date of auction as on 21.03.2005. Since no one participated in the previous public auction, the value of the property was revised and reduced to Rs.2.25 crores which was less than the reserved price and the Opposite Party bank wrote a letter to these complainants dated 28-6-2005 asking to convey its consent for sale of the property for a sum of Rs.2.25 crores. However, these complainants have not responded to letter issued by the Opposite Party. Thereafter the Opposite Party bank issued another latter dated 16-8-2005 writing the reasons for reducing the reserve price. Anyhow the complainants have not accepted the request made by the Opposite Party bank, instead of the complainants wrote a letter dated 15-11-2005 expressing their intention to settle the matter by making payment under one time settlement scheme (OTS). The complainants on 8-2-2006 wrote a letter to the Opposite Party bank requesting to settle the loan to the tune of Rs.2,13,93,320/- the same was accepted by the Opposite Party and sanction for one time settlement through their letter 8-2-2006 and also accepted under the conditions that the above said amount shall be paid within 31-3-2006. The complainants have paid Rs.20.00 lakhs through cheque, it is OTS proposal, the same was encashed by the Opposite Party and credited to the “No lien account”. However on 31.03.2006 instead of paying the amount as per the agreed OTS, the complainants requested for extension of time by giving reason and accordingly time was extended to 15.04.2006 for payment of the OTS of Rs.2,13,93,320/- as a last chance. On 14-4-2006 the complainants again requested the Opposite Party for extension of time by two months through their letter dated 22-4-2006, but the Opposite Party bank rejected the request of the complainants vide letter dated 25-4-2006. Due to nonpayment of the said OTS amount, the old proposal of the OTS did not achieve finality.
Upon the failure of the OTS proposal, the officers of the Opposite Party bank taken steps for again sale of the property in public auction, accordingly the notice dated 27-4-2006 was published in Indian Express and published the proposed debtor public auction to be held on 8-5-2006, the auction date was published as on 8-5-2006. Accordingly the auction was held on 8-5-2006 and successful bidder had purchased the said property for a sum of Rs.2.16 crores being a highest bid and it was accepted. The auction purchaser had paid 25% of the bid amount and agreed to pay the balance amount on 24-5-2006. Consequently the auction purchasers are also made a payment to the Opposite Party bank and also spent Rs.49,91,000/- towards encumbrance and other documentation charges in totally the auction purchasers had paid an amount of Rs.2,83,39,735/- to the Opposite Party bank. On receiving the above said amount, the Opposite Party bank conveying the property by executing sale deed in favour of auction purchaser on 26-5-2006 followed by the issuance of the sale certificate. In the mean time, the complainants filed a Write Petition No.6471/2006 challenging the notice. However, the complainants withdraw the said Write Petition on 1-6-2006 to avail alternate remedy to challenge the said notice under SERFAFAESI Act. There afterward the complainants filed appeal under Section 18 of the SERFAFAESI Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The said appeal was dismissed on 5-7-2007 with the observation that the complainants only adopting dilatory tactics. The said order was challenged in the form of Write Petition filed before the High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench, Dharwad. The said Writ Petition also dismissed on 19-9-2011 against the said order, the complainants preferred an appeal before the Divisional Bench before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, the said divisional bench after considering the provision of the sub rule 5 and 6 of rule (8) as well as rule 9 of the SERFAFAESI Act and also found the informalities in the conduct of the impugned sale conducted by the Opposite Party bank and also observed that the provisions contained in Section 13 (8) of the SERFAFAESI Act, 2002 is specifically and most importantly for the protection of the borrowers, in as much as ownership of the secured assets is a constitutional right vested in the borrowers and protected under article 300 A of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Divisional Bench also observed that the secured creditor as a trustee of the secured as it cannot deal with the same in any manner it likes and such an asset can as it can be disposed of only in the manner prescribed in the SERFAFAESI Act, 2002 and also observed that the bank should ensure the borrower was to be clearly put up notice on the sale and time by which either the sale or the transfer will be effected in order to provide the required opportunity to the borrower to take all possible steps for retrieving his property. By considering the above observation along with the other materials considered by the High Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court once again examined the mater from all the angle and come to the conclusion that the procedure contained in the above said rules was admittedly not followed and also considered each and every aspect and it is ordered that the auction purchaser has paid a sum of Rs.1.86 crores towards the purchase of the property and Rs.30,00,000/- towards the movable items to the bank. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also observed that he has also spent Rs.1,86,335/- towards the registration fee and Rs.15,62,400/-towards stamp duty, in addition, dues towards municipal tax, sales tax liability, dues of Employees State Insurance Corporation, Employees Provident Fund and Belgaum Industrial Co-operative bank been paid to the tune of Rs.49,91,000/-. These were the liabilities of the borrower, in this way the total amount of Rs.2,83,39,735/- is directed to pay by the complainants to the auction purchaser. The said auction purchaser has also discharged municipal tax liability for a sum of Rs.2,86,078/- for the period of 1-4-2007 to 31-3-2009. Considering the all payments made by the auction purchasers, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that if the borrower pays the amount due to the bank registration charges, stamp duty as well as amount of encumbrances paid by the subsequent purchaser which was the liability of the borrower to the sum of Rs.49,91,000/- + Rs.2,86,078/- the property shall revert back to the borrower/complainants and also observed that if the above said amount are not paid within the two months, the bank shall be at liberty to proceed with the sale of the property following due process under the law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India also directed the complainants to refund the entire amount spent by the auction purchaser as mentioned above and also specifically observed that the auction purchaser not granted interest on the above said amount as the auction purchaser as in the meantime utilized the property in question.
The complainant further alleged that in compliance of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal N.4679/2014 and Civil Appeal No.4680/2014 dated 22-4-2012, they have paid an amount of Rs.2,86,25,813/- through DD No.576342 dated 16-6-2014 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Belgaum to the Opposite Party. The same was accepted by the Opposite Party and the loan was completely cleared and closed.
After receipt of the above said demand draft, the Opposite Party bank with utter surprised replied on 2-8-2014 stating that the complainants not complied with the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and demanded for discharge of entire liability to the bank amounting to Rs.10,73,98,107.12 as on 31-5-2014. The Opposite Party had received the DD for Rs.2,86,25,813/-as full and final settlement as per the direction given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. In spite of that, the Opposite Party has demanded the above said amount without any valid reason and also threatened the complainants that they are going to proceed against the complainants under the SERFAFAESI Act for recovery of the said amount and also threaten to refuse to delivery of the property along with original title deeds of the said property and issued a demand notice dated 2-8-2014. The Opposite Party has issued the said demand notice without any valid reasons and in order to mislead and grab the money the Opposite Party retained the possession of the title deeds of the property which amounts to deficiency of service. Once the loan was closed under the head of “Non-Performing Asset”, the seizing of the property is not valid. The Opposite Party bank has no authority to open new account or open any account under the same loan in order to claim, subsequently without following any guidelines of the RBI, the Opposite Party has issued demand notice demanding for payment of the amount of Rs.10,73,98,107.12. To avoid the said torture, the complainants approached the DRT for OTS and to settle for Rs.1.65 corers and sought for returning the property and title deed. However the DRT by its order dated 8-11-2015 directed the Opposite Party bank to return the possession of the property along with title deeds. Thereafter on 8-11-2015 the Opposite Party bank as per the court advocate commissioner report dated 8-11-2015 they have delivered the possession of the property but failed to return the original title deeds till date which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Further the Opposite Party bank has preferred appeal against the order passed by the DRT before the Chennai Debt Recovery Commission. The complainants suffered immensely from the hands of the Opposite Party bank one after another case and finally in order to get greed of the said torture and take bank the original title deeds the complainants forced to pay an amount of Rs.1.65 crores as one time settlement towards the claim made by the Opposite Party to the tune of Rs.10,73,98,107.12. The said amount was paid only in order to receive the title deed of the property and not for any other reasons. The collecting of the said amount also amounts to deficiency of service.
The complainants are the senior citizens and aged about more than 72 years and has no other source of income and his family was totally dependent on the above property. Due to non running of the hotel, the complainants suffered a financial loss. This Opposite Party bank have not provided the original title deeds as soon as the loan was closed if the title deed werel returned in time the complainants could have earned more than Rs.50.00 lakhs per year, due to non supply of the original title deeds the complainants were restrained from availing the loan for development of the hotel and suffered total financial loss. Hence the Opposite Party is rendered deficiency of service. In spite of payment of the entire loan amount under One Time Settlement as per the direction given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the Opposite Party was initiated another demand notice claiming Rs.10,73,98,107.12 against which they have settled the claim for Rs.1.65 crores under OTS and received the said amount illegally.
Further the Opposite Party has not paid the amount of Rs.50,000/- which was the cost imposed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka. Hence, the Opposite Party is liable to pay Rs.6.00 crores for loss of earning and compensation towards deficiency of service by not returning the title deeds. The Opposite Party is also liable to refund an amount of Rs.1.65 crores which was illegally collected along with Rs.50,000/-costs imposed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka. Hence, this complaint.
3. After service of the notice, the OP appeared through his counsel and filed version and contended that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts as mortgaged property is reconvened to the complaints on 16.04.2015 after cancelling the certificate of sale. The transaction is nearly 6 years old the loan account was settled under OTS on 05.05.2017 in which transaction is also 4 years old. The complainants have not raised this issue of non-receipt of to the return of Original Tile deeds etc. Hence the compliant is barred by time. In this regard the compliant is not maintainable and prays for dismissal of the complaint.
OP further denied all the averments made in the compliant and further submits that the complainants have paid of Rs.2,86,25,813/- on 16.06.2014 to this OP Bank by way of Demand draft drawn on Punjab National Bank and requested for handing over the possession of the mortgaged property. Moreover, this OP bank through the letter dated 02.08.2014 informed that the entire liability of the complainant towards OP bank thus, runs to 10,73,98,107/- as on 31.05.2014 and called upon the complainants to pay the entire dues within 2 months from the date of order of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The Recovery Officer-2 of DRT, Bangalore in DCP No.5242 dated 20.6.2008 (in OA No.135/2002) vide order dated 02.07.2015 directed this OP bank to refund the sum of Rs.20,00,000/- that has been kept in No lien account of the OP bank to complainant and also Rs.50,000/- being cost imposed by Hon’ble court as per writ appeal 6368/2011 dated 21.11.2011. Thereafter the Recovery Officer to Hon’ble DRT Bangalore vide order dated 04.11.2015, appointed Advocate Commissioner to take over and hand over the possession of the auctioned Movable and immovable properties to the complainants with the directions to submit the compliance report by 12.11.2015. Accordingly the Advocate Commissioner had handed over the possession of immovable and moveable properties to the complainants. As per the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the cancellation of certificate of sale was registered on 16.04.2015 and mortgaged property was reconveyed to the complainants.
The Opposite Party further contended that this OP bank has approached Hon’ble DRAT Appellate Tribunal, Chennai by filing miscellaneous appeal No.140/2015 and in the meantime the High Power Committee for the OP bank permitted one time settlement proposal of complainants for Rs.1,65,00,000/-. The complainants paid OTS amount to OP bank and issued a letter dated 26.05.2017 to the complainants, confirming closure of loan accounts under OTS for Rs.1.65 crores. Thereafter, after a lapse about 4 years i.e., on 04.02.2019 the complainant alleged OP bank has failed to return the original title deeds of the Mortgaged property till today. As per the direction the Hon’ble Supreme court of India the cancellation of certificate of sale was registered on 16.04.2015 itself and the actual possession of the mortgaged property was given to the complainants. In fact, this OP bank at the request of the auction purchaser had handed over the original title documents of mortgaged property to Sri.Harsha.B Vakil, Project consultant of M/s Vihar developers Private Limited, the proprietor Sri Vasu.P.Shetty against the acknowledgement dated 14.08.2006. This OP bank was continuously following up with the auction purchaser Sri Vasu.P.Shetty for return of the Original title deeds. In the meantime, the auction purchaser was Vasu.P.Shetty was expired; this OP bank issued a legal notice to legal heir one of Sri.Akshay Shetty S/o Vasu P Shetty and Sri Harsha.B.Vakil, Project Consultant on 28.10.2018 and 17.02.2020 respectively demanding for return of the Original title deeds. Since, there is no response of the LRs of the purchaser till date they have initiated legal proceedings against them in accordance with law to get back the Original title deeds as such there is no any deficiency in service on the part of the this OP as alleged by the Complainant.
OP further contended that after allegations made by the Complainant that the OP has opened a new account in spite of closure of account in order to mislead and grab the money from complainant. As per income recognition the in case of non-performing asset shall be only to the extent of the actual recovery. Hence, the periodical interest in the case of NPA is not recognized as income and will be debited to Interest Accrual Account (Suspense account) and reversed to income head only to the extent of actual recovery made through NPA accounts as and when the actual recovery is made. Thus they have initiated recovery proceedings of the further due of Rs.10,73,98,107.12/- Subsequently, the same was closed with OTS offer of the complainants to pay Rs.1,65,00,000/- hence, there is no unfair trade practice rendered by this OP it is not correct to suggest that the Complainant have suffered financial loss of the closer of the loan and also they had suffered financial loss to the tune of Rs.6,00,00,000/- they have initiated civil proceeding against the legal heirs of the auction purchaser to recovery of the title deeds. Hence, there is no deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The complainants filed affidavit evidence and marked documents as given of C-1 to C-21. The OP also filed affidavit and marked the documents. Further, one Court Commissioner Sri.S.A.Patil, advocate appointed for the purpose of inspecting the entire hotel premises. The said Court Commissioner submitted detailed report.
5. Heard the arguments from both parties
6. On perusal, the following points will arise for our consideration;
(1) Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties?
(2) Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as sought?
(3) What is the order?
7. The findings to the above points are;
(1) In the affirmative
(2) In the partly affirmative
(3) As per final order
REASONS
8. Point No.1 to 3: On perusal of the pleadings, affidavits evidences and documents produced by the both the parties along with Court Commissioner report and photographs produced by said Court Commissioner, we found it is an admitted fact that the complainant had cleared the entire outstanding loan obtained from the OP as per the orders given by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India to the tune of Rs.2,86,25,813/- through DD payable by Punjab National Bank. Subsequently, it is also an admitted fact that the OP bank has issued another notice for payment of Rs.Rs.10,73,98,107/-. Further, they have initiated recovery proceeding before DRT at Chennai, even the said matter was settled at under OTS before Appellate Tribunal and the complainants have paid Rs.1,65,00,000/-, thus at the end, the entire loan was cleared by the complainants. It is also an admitted fact that the complainants have received a physical possession of the mortgaged property/hotel property after clearance of the loan to the tune of Rs.2,86,25,813/-. At the time of giving actual possession, the OP admittedly failed to return the original documents of the said mortgage property.
9. On perusal of the version and affidavit evidence filed by the OP, we noticed that they have initiated the civil proceeding for recovery of the Original title deeds from the previous auction purchaser/LRs of the action purchaser; we noticed that the said civil proceedings were initiated only after filing of this complaint before this commission. Therefore, it is an admitted fact that the OP has not returned the original documents to the complainants. It is a clear case of deficiency in service of the OP in not returning the original title deeds of the mortgaged property to the complainants. The complainants in the sworn affidavit that due to non-availability of title deeds of the mortgaged property, they have not run the hotel. Due to closure of the said hotel by OP, they have suffered financial loss.
10. Further the Opposite Party has taken contention that the complainants have filed the complaint after lapse of five years after clearance of loan. Therefore, the complaint is barred by time and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. The said plea was rejected as because the original title deeds still not return to the complainants in spite of repeated request and unless the claim made by the complainants was rejected, we found there is continuous cause of action to file the complaint. Hence, the complaint is well within the time.
11. The complainants have in order to clear the entire loan borrowed loan from individuals some other third party individuals the said loan was also not repaid to the said person, due to non-running of the hotel. Hence the complainants have claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.6.00 crores along with Rs.2.00 crores towards mental agony.
12. The complainants also sought for refund of Rs.1.65 crores which was paid under OTS before Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chennai. The complainants sworn affidavit evidence that the said amount was paid only because the Opposite Party was going to provide the original documents even though there is no any liability on the part of the complainants to pay the said amount. Further the complainants sworn that in spite of receiving the amount of Rs.1.65 crores under OTS, the Opposite Party has not returned the Original documents which led the complainants throw into streets. Hence, prayed for refund of the amount which was legally collected by the Opposite Party to the tune of Rs.1.65 crores. Considering the all evidences and documents produced by both parties, it is clear that, the Opposite Party has rendered unfair trade practice in not returning the original title deeds to the complainants as soon as the loan amount was paid. We are of the opinion that, it is bounden duty on the part of the Opposite Party to recover the original title deeds as soon as the certificate of sale was cancelled, as per the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The Opposite Party has kept quiet for a long period, in spite of repeated requests made by the complainants for return of the original title deeds. We noticed it is only after filing the complaint before this Commission; the Opposite Party has initiated a proceeding by issuing a legal notice to legal representative of the auction purchaser for recovery of the original title deed. Upon the observation of the affidavit sworn by the Opposite Party, we noticed the auction purchaser Sri.Vittal.V.Shetty was died and the Opposite Party has made efforts to recovery the original title deed from the LRs of the said auction purchaser. This clearly goes to show that, there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party for making attempt for recovery of the original title deeds from the LRs of the auction purchaser subsequent to filing this complaint. It is also noticed that, the complainants filed an application to provide indemnity bond and certified copy of the sale deed from the Opposite Party before this Commission for which the Opposite Party instead of providing the same have filed objections and this Commission proceeded to pass an order directing the Opposite Party to provide indemnity bond and also to provide certified copy of the title deeds of the complainants. This also shows that the Opposite Party is very negligent in providing the title deeds to the complainants. Furthermore, we noticed the complainants have filed an application under Order 26 Rule 9 r/w Section 151 of CPC for appointment of the Court Commissioner to inspect the hotel premises for which the Opposite Party has filed objections and denied for appoint of the Court Commissioner without any reasons. Anyhow after hearing on the said application the Court Commissioner was appointed to inspect the hotel promises to see whether the said hotel is suitable for running hotel. We noticed after due notice issued by the Court Commissioner the Opposite Party has not present at the time of inspection, they shown very negligence for inspection of the hotel promises. Anyhow in the absence of the Opposite Party, the Court Commissioner has inspected the entire promises and submitted the detailed report; the said Court Commissioner had taken assistance of another surveyor for the purpose of assessing the loss suffered by the complainants. On perusal of the said survey report, we noticed the Court Commissioner has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.5,67,98,430/-. The photographs discloses the entire hotel promises building is in deliberated condition, the said hotel becomes such a bad condition only because of non furnishing the title deeds to the complainants to run the hotel business by availing a loan from the other financial institutions. Hence it is clear case of deficiency of service which the Opposite Party is liable to pay global compensation to the tune of Rs.2.00 crores to the complainants. As far as the payment of refund of Rs.1.65 crores we have no comments as because the complainants had paid the said amount before the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Chennai under one time settlement scheme. Further the complainants are also not furnished any materials to show that they are entitled for refund of the amount of Rs.50,000/-. Under this circumstance, we are of the opinion that, the Opposite Party is liable to pay the above said amount to the complainants along with they are liable to pay compensation for deficiency of service to the tune of Rs.5.00 lakhs along with litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/-. Further the Opposite Party is liable to return the original documents pertaining to the property of the complainants at the earliest point of time. As such the complaint is allowed and accordingly we proceed to pass the following;
O R D E R
The complaint is allowed with litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/-(Rs.Twenty five thousand) to the complainants.
The Opposite Party is directed to pay global compensation of Rs.2.00 cores (Rs.Two crores) to the complainants towards loss suffered due to not returning the original title deeds after the clearance of the loan along with a cost of Rs.50,000/-(Rs.Fifty thousand).
Further the Opposite Party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10.00 lakhs (Rs.Ten Lakhs) to the complainants for deficiency in service.
If the Opposite Party failed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, the Opposite Party further directed to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the said amount from the date of default till realization.
Further the Opposite Party is directed to return the original title deeds within four months from the date of this order.
Send a copy of this order to both parties.
Member Judicial Member
Jrk/-
