Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 464.
Instituted on : 10.09.2019.
Decided on : 21.09.2021.
Narender Kumar Goyal s/o Late Sh. Anup Singh Goyal age 63 years, R/o H.No.624/34 Prem Nagar, Janta Colony Rohtak, Haryana, Pin: 124001.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Central Bank of India Through its C.E.O/M.D., Mumbai, Main Office Building 2nd Floor, MG Road, Fort Mumbai, Maharashtra Pin:-400023.
- General Manager(OPR) 2nd floor Main office Building MG Road Fort, Mumbai(Maharashtra) Pin: 400023.
- Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, 1398, Chandni Chowk Branch New Delhi-110006.
- Naveen Kumar Chief Manager Central Bank of India 1398, Chandni Chowk Branch New Delhi-110006.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Ankit Hooda, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Ajay Kumar Dua, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that complainant was an employee of opposite parties and had taken a loan from Central Bank of India amounting to Rs.296400/- vide loan agreement account No.1798951094 on dated 29.10.1998. The loan was taken from Branch Office Chawari Bazar Delhi and later on this branch was merged with Chandni Chowk, Branch Delhi. Complainant pledged the registered original sale Deed No.6270 dated 29.10.1998 with stamp duty of Rs.62775/- registered in the office of Sub Registrar Rohtak as security on good faith for the purpose of taking loan from the opposite parties/ bank. Opposite party Bank advanced the loan to the complainant and the complainant after payment of loan, contacted the opposite parties so many times for releasing the sale deed of his house. Complainant also sent a legal notice dated 07.04.2018 but the opposite party replied that the sale deed of the house no.6270 dated 2910.2018 had lost by the Bank employee at the time of shifting of Branch Chawari Bazar to Chandni Chowk Branch and a DDR LR No.1926554/2018 dated 07.08.2018 is lodged by the opposite parties on dated 17.01.2017 and news was published in newspaper on dated 29.09.2018. Complainant also sent a shows cause notice to OPs No.3 & 4 and also lodged an FIR u/s 403, 425, 409/34 against the opposite parties but no action was taken by the police. It is the prime duty on the part of opposite parties to deal fairly with the customer to provide them proper service and in the present complaint opposite parties no.3,4,5 were deficient in service and adopted unfair trade practice and have caused financial loss to the complainant as his valuable sale deed was lost by the opposite parties. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay Rs.1700000/- as compensation on account of mental agony suffered by the complainant due to missing of original sale deed no.6270 dated 29.10.1998 and stamp duty Rs.62775/- and Rs.55000- as cost of litigation alongwith interest to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties appeared and filed their written reply submitting therein that deposit of sale deed by the complainant with the bank is matter of record but it is wrong and denied that the complainant pledged the sale deed with stamp duty of Rs.62775/-. It is further submitted that the original sale deed of the complainant was misplaced and was not traceable and as such a first information report was lodged with the police on 07.08.2018 and the matter was also got published in the newspaper namely Veer Arjun and Statesman on 29.09.2018 and certified copy of sale deed was also obtained by the bank and it was requested to the complainant that he should collect the copy of information report, news paper cutting and certified copy of sale deed because the original sale deed was misplaced and was not traceable and there was no other alternate available with the bank. It is submitted that a false complaint was lodged by the complainant to the police. No criminal offence has been committed by the respondents and as such no action was required to be taken by the police against the respondents. It is submitted that the respondents provided photo copy of original sale deed no.6270 dated 29.10.1998 on 24.07.2019. It is wrong and denied that the original sale deed is still in possession of OP No.3 & 4. As already submitted that the original sale deed has been misplaced and matter was reported to the police and publication was also done in news papers. Opposite parties are dealing fairly and providing proper service. Opposite parties tried their best to trace out the original sale deed but despite due diligence, the original sale deed could not be found. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12 and has closed his evidence on dated 02.11.2020. Ld. Counsel has also placed on record affidavits Ex.C2/A & Ex.C3/A and documents Ex.C13 to Ex.C14 in additional evidence and closed his evidence on 06.09.2021. Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R11 and closed his evidence on dated 05.07.2021.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that it is an admitted fact that the original sale deed of the complainant was misplaced by the bank. As per documents placed on record by the opposite parties, information report regarding the misplacement of the documents was lodged by the bank with the police on 07.08.2018 Ex.R1. The matter was also got published in the newspaper namely Veer Arjun and Statesman on dated 29.09.2018 Ex.R2 and Ex.R3 respectively. Certified copy of sale deed(Ex.R4) was obtained and was provided to the complainant by the bank. All reasonable steps have been taken by the bank to trace out the original sale-deed. However, due to losing his original sale deed complainant might have suffered mental agony and financial loss. To prove the same, complainant has placed on record affidavits Ex.C2/A & Ex.C3/A, documents Ex.C13 valuation report and photographs Ex.C14 in additional evidence. As per affidavit Ex.C2/A of Sh. Dayanand Goel, due to non availability of sale deed, nobody was willing to purchase the property on actual price. The another affidavit is of Sh. Akash Jain who has given the valuation report Ex.C13 and photographs Ex. C14. But from these documents it is not proved that due to non-availability of sale deed how much value of the property has been depreciated. However due to non-availability of sale deed complainant might have suffered financial loss. In this regard Ld. Counsel for the complainant has placed reliance upon the judgment dated 08.01.2018 of Hon’ble National Commission in case titled Sheel Sohal and another Vs. Axis Bank Limited, and judgment dated 03.11.2017 of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi titled as Branch Manager, State Bank of India and others Vs. Varanasi Bala Tripura Sundari. Complainant has also placed on record copy of Circular No.2059 dated 08.05.2019 and as per condition no.14.1 of this circular it is submitted that: “In case of loans against mortgage of property/property taken as collateral security, the original Title Deeds should be returned to the customer within a period of 15 days from date of loan closure. Delay in return of title deeds and/or where there is a case of loss of Title Deed from the custody of the Bank, the customer must be adequately compensated. The compensation payable to the Borrower party beyond 15 days from the date of loan closure may be pegged at Rs.100/- per day. In view of the aforesaid the condition no.14.1 of Circular No.2059 dated 08.05.2019 as well as aforesaid law placed on record by ld. Counsel for the complainant which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case, we find it justified to pay Rs.100/- per day w.e.f.15.01.2016(15 days from the date of loan closure i.e.31.12.2015) till the date of providing the photocopy of original sale deed i.e. 24.09.2017 alongwith interest & compensation on account of deficiency in service on the part of bank.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties No.1 to 3 to pay Rs.100/- per day w.e.f. 15.01.2016 to 24.09.2017(617 days) and shall also pay a sum of Rs.75000/-(Rupees seventy five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service i.e. Rs.61700/- + Rs.75000/- total Rs.136700/- (Rupees one lac thirty six thousand and seven hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 10.09.2019 till its realsiation to the complainant and also to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within 45 days failing which opposite party No.1 to 3 shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the awarded amount from the date of filing the present complaint.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
21.09.2021.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
...............................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
