O R D E R R.Vijayakumar, Member. (2) This is a complaint filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act. The facts of the complainant stated as that the complainant availed a loan on 11.11.07 for Rs.40,000/- pledging his property bearing Re.Sy.No.354/3 owned by the complainant. On 25.03.08 the complainant had closed the loan paying the entire dues amounting Rs.86,820. The complainant demanded for original records of the property, but the opposite parties had shown an evasive attitude. The opposite parties had not given the records back to the complainant. The money which was remitted to the Bank for clearing the dues was an advance amount received from one Mr.Biju agreeing to sell the said property to him on or before 17.04.08. The complainant had approached the opposite parties so many times for getting the documents. On 19.04.08 the complainant made a written request to the second opposite party. But opposite party has not responded to that request. The complainant had issued a legal notice on 12.04.08 demanding original records and compensation. The complainant had also sent a complaint to the Deputy General Manager, Urban Bank Department, Reserve Bank of India on 16.04.08. Due to the negligence of opposite parties, the complainant could not fulfill the conditions of sale agreement. The said Biju sent a legal notice (3) to the complainant and it is learnt that he is going to file for specific performance of contract and for compensation. All opposite parties are liable to give back the original document and liable to pay compensation. Hence the complaint. The opposite parties filed version contenting inter alia that there is no purposeful deficiency in service stated that it is not possible to trace out the original document as it was irrecoverably by to lost from the bank. Hence the opposite parties had given an advertisement in Mathrubhumi daily on their own cost. As per the direction from the Reserve Bank of India an attested copy of the original document taken from the concerned Sub-Registrar Office on OP’s cost. It was sent to the complainant on opposite parties cost and informed him that the inconvenience caused to him is regretted. In these circumstances there is no difficulty sell the property. No loss sustained by the complainant as stated in the complaint. The complainant demanded Rs.50,000/- only in the legal notice. But he had raised the amount of compensation to Rs.1, 00,000 in the complaint. The complaint is liable to be dismissed. (4) The complainant filed affidavit Exhibits P1 to P10 and P1@ marked. From the part of opposite party DW1 examined. Exhibits D1 to D5 marked. Heard both sides. The points that would arise for consideration are : 1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party 2. Compensation and cost. Points (1) and (2) Adnuttedly the complainant had availed a loan for Rs.40,000/- and the loan was closed after remitting the due amount fully. No dispute raised by the opposite party against the fact that the complainant had demanded for original documents. Accepted by the OP that the original title deed was misplaced in the Bank and that a written complaint was made before Government of Kerala and Reserve Bank of India by the complainant. (5) It is also admitted by the complainant that instruction given by RBI to the opposite party were complied with Certified copy of the original document was obtained from Registration Department and issued the complainant. A publication was made in Mathrubhumi Daily and an apology letter was also sent to the complainant. The main point of contention of the complainant is that the loss sustained by the complainant cannot be compensated with the actions taken by ops. The complainant has paid compensation Rs.30000/- as he could not complied with the agreement for sale of the said property to Biju. The complainant had produced the original of agreement deed dated: 17.03.08 and marked as Exhibit P1. An endorsement made by the said Biju in the second page of the agreement for the receipt of Rs.30000/- as compensation as for the default in complying the agreement by the complainant. That part of document marked as Exhibit P1 (a). The opposite party contented that P1 is a concocted document. It is not a registered document. The statement that the complainant settled the transaction with Biju by returning the advance amount of Rs.50,000/- with a further compensation Rs.30,000/- is fully in correct (6) and misleading. Proper receipt for that payment is not produced. The said Biju was not examined. The matter is recently written which is not proper and not in accordance with law. We have perused Exhibit P1 in detail. As per the document the agreement was written on 17.03.08. It is not a registered document. Exhibit P1 (a) is also not a proper receipt. Exhibit P4, the letter sent by the complainant to the opposite party dated: 05.04.08 is having some contradictions with Exhibit P1. In Exhibit P4 it is stated that the complainant had remitted the dues borrowing money from some persons and those persons were making quarrel with her because of the non-repayment of borrowed money. She borrowed the amount on belief that the amount can be refunded by taking loans from somewhere pledging the original deed. But even the document is not released from the Bank. If there is an agreement executed with the said Biju on 17.03.08, surely the complainant would have clearly stated about the agreement in (7) that letter dated: 05.04.08. On the other hand it is stated that she had borrowed money from some other persons. Thus Exhibit P4 itself smashed the bonafides of Exhibit P1 and P1 (a). We cannot ignore the argument that the Exhibit P1 is made subsequently for this case. Hence we are of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled to get Rs.30000/- as compensation which he had claimed as the payment made by him for compensation from non-compliance of sale agreement. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that no execution has taken against the custodian of the document for the negligent act. Neither a domestic enquiry nor a departmental enquiry was conducted. The opposite parties have stated that the RBI has not suggested an enquiry. It is not the RBI, but the Board of Directors of the Bank is the authority to suggest action against the concerned office. The Bank is also duty bound to take necessary steps to trace out the document and to take action against the delinquent officer who had committed dereliction of the duty in keeping valuable documents. The argument of learned counsel for opposite party that “ between the period of availing loan and closing loan the custodian of document in question had changed and hence the liability cannot be fixed on any individual as no deliberate latches were made by any (8) person ” is not sustainable. That aspect can be ascertained only by conducting an enquiry. Here, the Director Board of OP bank has not taken any action even to conduct an enquiry. We have no hesitation come to the conclusion that it is because of the negligent attitude from the part of opposite parties. The learned counsel for opposite party argued that it is not true that the complainant had remitted the entire due amount. Subsidy of Rs.43747 was given to the complainant only because of the liberal attitude of the opposite parties. The subsidy given to the complainant is true. But it is not because of the liberal attitude of the OP only but it is only under the provisions of OTS scheme. Moreover, this point has no relevance in this case. The learned counsel for OP argued that the contention of complainant that he is not in a position to sell the property for want of title deed is not true. He has stated that the complainant can very well dispose the property by declaring that there is no claim with regard to that property and by taking other documents from proper authorities to show that there is no (9) other liability over the property. He has pointed out that the OP had already published the matter in newspaper and sent an apology letter also. It is quite probable that the lack of original document will exate difficulties in the sale of the said property. It cannot be taken in an easy manner as the opposite party has argued. The above title deed also diminish the value of that property. Hence the loss sustained by the complainant can not be compensated by the actions taken by the opposite parties as per the directions of RBI. For all that has been discussed above we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. The points found accordingly. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part. The opposite parties are directed to pay compensation Rs.30,000/- and cost Rs.1500/-. The order is to be complied with within one month of the date of receipt of the order. (10) Dated this the 30th day of June 2010. K.Vijayakumaran : Sd/- Adv.Ravi Susha : Sd/- R.Vijayakumar : Sd/- / / Forwarded by Order / / Senior Superintendent INDEX List of witness for complainant Pw1 - Gopalakrishnan List of documents for complainant P1 - Sale Agreement in original dated: 17.03.08. P2 - Cash Receipt No.86004 in original dtd: 25.03.08 P3 - Certificate in original dtd: 25.03.08. P4 - photocopy of the request made by the complainant P5 - Office copy of the Advocate notice dtd: 12.04.08. P6 - Postal receipts (2 in nos.) dtd: 15.04.08) P7 - Photocopy of the complainant dtd: 16.04.08. P8 - Postal receipt in original dtd: 17.04.08. P9 - Advocate notice dtd: 19.04.08. P10 - Reply notice dtd: 24.04.08. List of witness for opposite party DW1 - Mary List of documents for opposite party D1 - Paper publication D2 - Apology letter copy D3 - Letter of RBI D4 - Voucher | 
