BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.280 of 2021
Date of Instt. 18.08.2021
Date of Decision: 16.02.2023
Yograj aged about 60 years S/o Sh. Rawal Chand R/o H. No.11, Near K. P. Park, New Model House, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh.
2. Manager, State Bank of India, SUS Nagar Branch Jalandhar.
3. Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Retail Assets Central Processing Centre, 1st Floor, State Bank of India Civil Lines, Jalandhar.
4. Branch Manager, State Bank of India GTB Nagar, Branch Jalandhar, Branch Code-50485.
….….. 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. A. K. Arora, Adv. Counsel for the OPs No.1 to 4.
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 raised house loan in the month of November 1991 to the tune of Rs.1,35,000/- from OP's Branch. At the time of raising of the said loan, the complainant had deposited with OP the original title deed of the property i.e. H. No.11, Near K.P. Park, New Model House, Jalandhar along with valuation report, opinion report and original approved map of the said property from Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar with the other documents for loan. The complainant had also sent OP a letter in form no.629 confirming the mortgage of said property with original title deed. Then the complainant had raised subsequent loans and the same also been adjusted/cleared. The last loan of Rs.6 lacs was adjusted by the complainant on 05.05.2021 i.e. with the branch of OP No.2. The Branch Manager of OP No.2 gave NOC to the complainant dated 05.05.2021 regarding the liquidation of Housing Loan A/c No. 65149224848 and also advised him to go to OP No.3 for the title deed. The complainant went to OP No.3 for collecting the above stated original title deed but OP No.3 told the complainant that they have not received the file of the complainant from Branch. So, his title deed is with the Branch. Again the complainant went to OP No.2 and moved an application dated 07.05.2021 regarding the title deed and OP No.2 told the complainant that the recital of deeds has been done by OP No.4 and the complainant had given the original title deeds to them so the complainant's title deeds are with OP No.4. A written endorsement regarding the above stated fact was also made by OP No.2 on the application dated 07.05.2021 given to OP No.2. The complainant has been contacting OPs No.2 to 4 and had even moved applications to OPs No.2 to 4 regarding the non-delivery of original title deeds to OPs No.2 to 4 i.e. on dated 18.05.2021, 14.06.2021, 17.06.2021 but uptill now the complainant has not got his original title deed. On the contrary, OPs are lingering on the matter with one pretext or the other and are now offering the complainant of delivering certified copies of the title deed instead of original title deeds vide endorsement on the application dated 14.06.2021. The OP No.4 vide letter dated 29.06.2021 has again asked the complainant to contact the SBI, Overseas Branch Jalandhar for delivery of original title deed. These acts and conduct of OP have got great mental stress, tension and loss to the complainant. The title deeds of the property of the complainant are very vital and important documents 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 OPs No.2 to 4. Due to the loss of the original title deeds 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 to 4. 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 14.07.2021, 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.65149224848 against the loan amount and to pay the damages to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/- including interest @ 12% per annum due to the loss of the original title deed, diminishing the value of the property situated at H. No.11, Near K. P. Park, New Model House, 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 complainant being the employee of OP bank has availed loan from different branches of the bank and the OP 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. It is not out of place to mention here that Sh. Yog Raj complainant (Ex-Staff Member, Erstwhile SBP) was sanctioned a Housing Loan of Rs.136200.00 on 11.11.1991 by Erstwhile -SBP, Regional Office(J-11), Ambedkar Chowk, Jalandhar by addressing the sanction letter to e-SBP, GTB Nagar, Jalandhar Branch while his (Sh. Yog Raj) posting at e-SBP, Kapurthala, for which the recital for creation of charge on the property was created by the e-SBP, GTB Nagar, Jalandhar Branch on 16.11.1991 at recital register page No.68. Afterwards, the loan file was moved by e-SBP, GTB Nagar Branch, Jalandhar to e-SBP Kapurthala branch on 28.02.1992 vide their advice No.022 dated 28.02.1992. Thereafter, the loan file was transferred to e-SBP Kapurthala Branch to e-SBP, Shastri Market, Jalandhar on 08.08.1996 vide their advice No KPT/ADV/ dated 08.08.1996 Afterwards, the loan file was transferred from e-SBP, Shastri Market, Jalandhar to e-SBP, Ambedkar Chowk, Jalandhar on 27.10.1998 vide Advice No.062 dated 27.10.1998. Thereafter, another Housing Loan of Rs.163000.00 was sanctioned to Sh. Yog Raj on 20.05.2000 by Regional Office-II(Jalandhar) while his posting at AGM Office-III, Jalandhar. Afterwards, another loan of Rs.6.00 Lac LE was sanctioned to Sh. Yog Raj on 30.08.2012 by e-SBP, Regional Office-1(J) while posting of Sh. Yog Raj as Dy. Manager at Nawanshahr. After liquidation of Housing Loans by Sh. Yog Raj on 05.05.2021, he has demanded the title deed from Overseas Branch, Jalandhar (50697) on 07.05.2021 as the Ambedkar Chowk Branch Jalandhar was merged with Overseas Branch in February, 2020 and all loan files were migrated to Overseas Branch. Since during the period 1991 to 2012 the complainant has availed loan facilities from time to time from different branches of the erstwhile State bank of Patiala and as such 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 lay its hand on the title deed of the complainant up till now. Even letter dated 3.6.2021 was written to the complainant to call the OP for resolving the issue but the complainant has not called the OP for the said purpose. Till the title deed is not traced the OP is ready to provide the certified copy of the title deed to the complainant with the undertaking that the original title deed which was deposited with the OP is not traceable at present and will be supplied to the complainant by the OP, as and when traceable. 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. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant was the employee of the OP/State Bank of India and now he is retired from the job. It is also admitted fact that he had raised a house loan in the month of November, 1991, to the tune of Rs.1,35,000/- from the OPs and at the time of raising the loan, the complainant had deposited the original title deed of the property i.e. H. No.11, Near K.P. Park, New Model House, Jalandhar along with valuation report, opinion report and other documents. It is also admitted that another loan of Rs.1,63,000/- was sanctioned on 20.05.2000 and then another loan of Rs.6,00,000/- was sanctioned on 30.08.2012 when he was posted as Deputy Manager at Nwanshahr. It has also been admitted that all the housing loans have been liquidated by the complainant and the OP No.2 gave NOC to the complainant on 05.05.2021, 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 month of November, 1991, to the tune of Rs.1,35,000/- 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 i.e. H. No.11, Near K.P. Park, New Model House, Jalandhar along with valuation report, opinion report and other documents. It is also admitted and proved fact that another loan of Rs.1,63,000/- was sanctioned on 20.05.2000, vide Ex.OP1-4/2 and then another loan of Rs.6,00,000/- was sanctioned on 30.08.2012, vide Ex.OP1-4/3 when he was posted as Deputy Manager at Nwanshahr. It has also been admitted that all the housing loans have been liquidated by the complainant and the OP No.2 gave NOC to the complainant on 05.05.2021. The NOC has been proved by the complainant Ex.C-1. The complainant wrote a letter to the OPs for releasing his title deeds mentioning his account number Ex.C-2. Again he wrote a letter to the OPs on 18.05.2021 Ex.C-3 for non-delivery of original title deeds of house loan. On similar basis, another letter was written by the complainant Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5 for releasing his title deeds. The OPs have sent a reply to the complainant, vide Ex.C-6, vide which they have mentioned that his home loan account was maintained at State Bank of India Overseas Branch Jalandhar, therefore he advised him to visit the State Bank of India, Overseas Branch Jalandhar for delivery of the original title deed, but till today, the title deeds have not been delivered to the complainant by the OP.
7. The contention of the OPs is that after sanctioning of the loan, the file of the complainant was transferred to the e-SBP Kapurthala Branch, then to e-SBP, Shastri Market, Jalandhar on 08.08.1996, then the loan file was transferred from e-SBP Shastri Market to e-SBP, Ambedkar Chowk, Jalandhar. The Ambedkar Chowk Branch Jalandhar was merged with Overseas Branch in February, 2020 and all the loan files were migrated to Overseas Branch. The complainant approached the Overseas Branch also on the suggestion of the OPs vide Ex.C-6 dated 29.06.2021 and Overseas Branch earlier asked the complainant to call the office during banking hours to resolve the matter. 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.
8. 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 SBP 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.
9. 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 No.65149224848 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.
10. 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
