BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.279 of 2021
Date of Instt. 18.08.2021
Date of Decision: 16.02.2023
Onkar Singh aged about 60 years S/o Sh. Girdhari Lal R/o V.P.O. Ladhewali, Main Road, Near Guru Ravidass Mandir, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh.
2. Chief Manager, State Bank of India, G. T. Road, Kartarpur Branch Jalandhar.
3. Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Retail Assets Central Processing Centre, 1st Floor, State Bank of India Civil Lines, Jalandhar.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: Sh. Anupam Pathania, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.
Sh. R. K. Saddi, Adv. Counsel for the OPs.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant was working in State Bank of India and has now retired from the post of Manager in the month of March 2021. The complainant had taken house loans from State Bank of Patiala, Kartarpur Branch, Jalandhar which has now merged to State Bank of India. Initially in the year 1991 the complainant had taken loan from State Bank of Patiala, Kartarpur Branch and at that time the titled deed of the property of the complainant was kept in that branch. During the service of the complainant, the complainant took other loans on the above stated title deed which remained with State Bank of Patiala and after its merger in the year 2017 with State Bank of India. Two loans of the complainant having Loan account Nos.65020169981 and 65174918687 were pending. The complainant was retired on 31.03.2021. Above stated two house loans pending in different branches of OP were adjusted with the retirement benefits of the complainant. The complainant had moved an application to OP No.1 on 14.06.2021. At present nothing is left due regarding the above stated loans with OP. Even NOC has also been issued by the OP on 26.04.2021. Now, the complainant wanted to sell his house/property so he approached opposite party no. 3 for getting the title deed which is attached with the loan file, but the OP No.3 advised the complainant that the title deed of the complainant is lying at Kartarpur Branch. They also sent the complainant, copy of letter, recital and copy of cheque list of the file showing that the title deed is at their Kartarpur Branch. The complainant then received a letter from OP No.2 & 3 stating the fact that as per letter no.3017 dated 17.02.1997, the then Branch Manager has mentioned in his letter that the title deed has been deposited with Rainak Bazar Branch, Jalandhar and OP No.2 & 3 tried to locate/trace the title deed but could not find it so far. The title deed of the property of the complainant is very vital and important document pertaining to the property. It is very difficult to transfer a property without its original title deed. As already stated above the complainant intends to dispose off his property, but he is unable to do the same because the buyer ask for the original title deed and the complainant is unable to provide the same because of the negligent, irresponsible and unprofessional conduct on the part of OP especially OPs No.2 and 3. Due to the loss of the original title deed pertaining to the property of the complainant, the value of the property of the complainant has been diminished. The complainant is under a great mental stress and is going into the state of depression due to the lame excuses given by OPs No.2 and 3. The complainant is surprised because he has himself served in the bank department throughout his life and has retired from the post of Manager but he is unable to get any relief himself. The complainant is running from pillar to post and has not got any relief. The complainant through his counsel sent legal notice to the OPs on 09.07.2021 through registered post, but all in vain and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to find the title deed of house loan having loan account No.65020169981 and 65174918687 and to pay the damages to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum due to the loss of the original title deed, diminishing the value of the property situated at Village Ladhewali, Tehsil and Distt. Jalandhar and for mental harassment, in favour of the complainant and against the OPs.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is hit with the principal of misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. It is further averred that the present complaint is not maintainable against answering OP. It is further averred that no cause of action arose against the answering OP. It is further averred that the complainant has not complied the rules vide drafting the present complaint. It is further averred that the complainant is barred, estopped and precluded from filing the present complaint by their own acts of admission, commission and omission. It is further averred that the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands and have suppressed the material facts from the court and hence the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. The real fact is that since, the complainant has availed loan from different branches of the bank along with State Bank of Patiala, Kartarpur Branch & the recital of the same was done in State Bank of Patiala, Rainak Bazar Branch, Jalandhar (Now merger in SBI) as such the original sale deed might be lying with the said branch or other branches of the erstwhile State Bank of Patiala where the complainant has availed loan facility from time to time. Since 1991 the complaint has availed loan facility from time to time from different branches of the bank. The OP is searching the title deed from different branches of the bank from where the complainant has availed loan facilities and have not been able to trace the title deed of the complainant till now. Till the title deed is not traced the OP is ready to provide the certified copy of the same to the complainant with the undertaking that as and when the original title deed traceable the same will be supplied to the complainant. The OP has no intention to keep the title deed of the complainant but is trying to trace out the title deed and shall deliver the same to him after being traced. It is further averred that the complainant being ex-employee of the OP and he is better known where and when the loan file alongwith title deed was transferred, whenever he availed the loan facility from the different branches of the OPs. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant was working in State Bank of India and has now retired from the post of Manager in the month of March, 2021 and it is also admitted that the complainant had taken house loans from State Bank of Patiala. It is also admitted that the complainant sent the legal notice to the OP, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement.
4. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by counsel for the complainant very minutely.
6. It is admitted fact that the complainant was the employee of the OP/State Bank of India. It is also admitted fact that now he is retired from the job. It is also admitted fact that he had raised a house loan in the year 1991 from the OPs. It is also admitted fact that at the time of raising the loan, the complainant had deposited the original title deed of the property, which was kept in that branch. It is also admitted and proved fact that other two loans having loan account Nos.65020169981 and 65174918687 were obtained by the complainant, Vide Ex.D-1, on the basis of same title deed, which remained with State Bank of Patiala and after its merger in the year 2017 with State Bank of India. It has also been admitted that all the housing loans have been liquidated by the complainant and the OPs gave NOC to the complainant on 26.04.2021. The complainant wrote a letter to the OPs for releasing his title deeds Ex.C-1. In reply to this letter, the OP sent a letter Ex.C-2, wherein they stated that they have checked their record and found that at the time of migration of files Title Deed was not received by the branch which is mentioned on the migration sheet, he is therefore requested to contact his Kartarpur Branch for collection the title deed of his house. Then the complainant received a letter Ex.C-3 from OP No.2 & 3 wherein it was mentioned that as per letter No.3017 dated 17.02.1997, the then Branch Manager has mentioned in his letter that the title deed has been deposited with Rainak Bazar Branch, Jalandhar and OPs No.2 & 3 tried to locate/trace the title deed, but could not find it so far.
7. The contention of the OPs is that the complainant has availed loan from different branches of the bank along with State Bank of Patiala, Kartarpur Branch & the recital of the same was done in State Bank of Patiala, Rainak Bazar Branch, Jalandhar (Now merger in SBI) as such the original sale deed might be lying with the said branch or other branches of the erstwhile State Bank of Patiala where the complainant has availed loan facility from time to time. The OP is searching the title deed from different branches of the bank from where the complainant has availed loan facilities and have not been able to trace the title deed of the complainant till now and the OP is ready to provide the certified copy of the same to the complainant with the undertaking that as and when the original title deed is traceable the same will be supplied to the complainant.
8. From all the documents and from written statement of the OPs, it is proved that the State bank of Patiala merged with State Bank of India and the title deeds of the complainant have been misplaced and are not traceable. As per the written statement, the OPs is trying to search the title deed of the complainant from all the branches from where he has availed the loan from time to time and the title deed shall be delivered to the complainant as and when available, meaning thereby that the title deeds deposited by the complainant are not available and are not traceable in any branch of the OP. The OP has made offer to supply the certified copy of the title deed at their own expenses, but this negligent act of the OP has caused the harassment to the complainant. The title deeds are of house which is immovable property and non-delivery of the title deeds has demolished the value of house as he is not able to sell the same, if he wants. It has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission, in First Appel No.1661 of 2019, titled as ‘ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Dilip Kumar Sett’, decided on 06.02.2023 that loss of an original property document materially affects the salability and value of the property. A question mark clings and obtains on the property, in perpetuity. It has further been observed that it is the duty of the bank to conduct inquiry to fix the accountability. It has further been observed by the Hon'ble National Commission that when by its own admission, it had lost/misplaced the complainant’s original property document, the bank should have, on its own, in the normal wont of its functioning, got the concerned document reconstructed, handed over the reconstructed document to the complainant with courtesy and apology.
9. In the present case, admittedly, the documents have been misplaced and are not traceable. It is not the case of the OP that any inquiry was conducted to fix the accountability or any efforts have been made to conduct an internal inquiry to fix the responsibility. The conduct of the OPs seems to be very casual. It they cannot preserve and protect the documents of the consumers, they have no right to take the same at the time of sanctioning and granting the loan. The banking institution is a responsible institution and they should act responsibly. This is not the right approach to defend their case by saying that since the SBOP Branch was merged with State Bank of India Branch and all the files might be lying with them and the complainant had been taking the loan from different branches and the file was also transferred to different branches, but the fact remains that all the branches are of OPs and it is their duty to maintain the proper record. This is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs as the complainant has already deposited the entire amount and cleared the loan. He is being harassed unnecessarily for want of title deeds. Thus, the complainant is entitled for the relief as claimed.
10. In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and OPs are directed to find the title deed of the house loan having loan account Nos.65020169981 and 65174918687 or get the same reconstructed at their own expenses and handover the same to the complainant. Further, OPs are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and for conducting negligently in keeping the original documents and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
11. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jaswant Singh Dhillon Jyotsna Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj
16.02.2023 Member Member President
