1. The present Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in Appeal No. 327/2015 dated 26.02.2018.

2. The Respondent/Complainant availed a term loan from the Petitioner/Opposite Party Bank in which the mother of the Respondent Smt. D. Jayakanthamma stood as a guarantor and deposited original DKT Patta No. 17/4/81 dated. 31.01.1972 granted in favour of her husband Sri. D. Bhaktavatsalam Naidu in respect of land in S.No.361/14 to an extent of Ac.4-00 cents as security and also a Registered Will dated 29.06.1973 executed by one Narayanaswamy in her favour.

   The Respondent became defaulter in discharging the loan amount and therefore the Petitioner Bank filed two suits in O.S. No. 66/1982 and O.S. No. 121/1982 against the Respondent, his father and mother before the Civil Court. The Complainant, later cleared the debt under “One Time Settlement” scheme of the RBI and the Petitioner also issued no dues certificate on 30.03.2011. The Petitioner, however, did not return the original documents taken from the Respondent towards security for the loan. The Respondent, issued a legal notice dated 09.01.2014 to the Petitioner Bank to return the original documents and pay Rs. 1,00,000/- towards compensation, but the Petitioner did not respond to the notice. Hence, Complaint was filed by the Respondent alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner.

3. The Complaint was contested by the Petitioner in the District Forum admitting the fact that the Respondent availed a loan and deposited the original documents and the fact that the documents were not returned to the Respondent till date, as alleged in the Complaint. The

    

   Petitioner contested that the Compliant is barred by limitation. The Petitioner also took the plea that the original documents filed by the Petitioner at the time of filing of suits against the Respondent, were not returned by the Courts. Hence, the Petitioner could not return the same to the Respondent. It was further stated that the details of the said loan were not available with the Petitioner because the said suits were filed 30 years ago and were disposed off 27 years back. The Petitioner Bank, therefore prayed before the District Forum, to dismiss the Complaint Case with costs.     

4. The District Forum, vide order dated 25.06.2015, allowed the Complaint on the ground that until and unless the original and valuable documents are returned to the Respondent, there would be continuous cause of action. In such circumstances it cannot be said that Complaint was barred by limitation without the Petitioner discharging their duties. It also directed the Petitioner to return the original DKT Patta in the name of Sri D. Bhakthavatsalam Naidu and original Registered Will of Smt. D. Jayakanthamma to the Respondent. Petitioner was further directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- towards compensation to the Respondent for the deficiency in service and Rs. 5,000/- towards costs of the Complaint and interest for non-compliance of the Order.

5. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed an Appeal before the State Commission against the Respondent. The State Commission, vide order dated 26.02.2018, dismissed the Appeal of the Petitioner on the ground that a document presented before the Civil Court as evidence can be returned only to the same party and not to others. The Petitioner Bank has put an unjustified obligation on the Respondent to obtain documents from the Civil Court. The Forum is right in directing the Petitioner Bank to return documents by awarding compensation and costs.

6. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the State Commission, the Petitioner preferred the present Revision Petition on the following grounds:-

7. The State Commission failed to appreciate the fact that the Complaint was barred by limitation prescribed in Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

8. The State Commission erred in not appreciating the fact that the original title documents were not in possession of the Petitioner, since the same were deposited with the Hon’ble Additional Subordinate Judge, Chittoor. The Petitioner, therefore, could not have returned the same and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner having been communicated the same in the year 2001. The Petitioner has also agreed to provide no-objection certificate for return of documents to the Respondent.

9. The State Commission also grossly ignored the evidence on record and directed the Petitioner to return the documents to the Respondent when the Civil Court has clearly said that the documents were destroyed in accordance with law. TheDistrict Forum and State Commission could have directed the Petitioner to approach the Revenue Authority and obtain a certified copy of DKT Patta and bear the expenses for the same but not seek the return of original DKT Patta. The same is an un-executable order.

10. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Caveator on behalf of the Respondent. They reiterated the arguments as already stated above.

11. There is a delay of 69 days in filing the present Revision Petition.I.A. 16602 of 2018 has been filed by the Petitioner stating that the matter pertains to credit facilities extended in 1975, the Bank officials had to trace all the documents in order to apprise this Hon’ble Commission of the same which led to delay in filing the said Petition. In view of the reasons stated, the delay is condoned.

12. We have carefully heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Caveator, as also perused the record. Both the District Forum and the State Commission have given detailed reasoning with regard to the aspect of limitation. The District Forum records that no document has been filed by the Petitioner to show that they have taken steps to get the documents back from the Courts since 1985, the date of disposal of suits. This itself is sufficient to decide that there is continuous cause of action, gross negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the Petitioner. Similarly, the State Commission has also further reiterated that there is a continuous cause of action and in light of Section 24-A the Complaint filed was very much in time. Having gone through the sequence of events we concur with the view that the Complaint is not barred by limitation.

13. The Respondent took a loan from the Petitioner Bank by mortgaging land and depositing title deed and Registered Will as stated above. The Petitioner filed suits in the Civil Court as the Respondent failed to repay the loan. Though the decree of the Civil Court went in favour of the Petitioner Bank, no execution was filed. Instead after lapse of a long time, a One Time Settlement was arrived at and the loan closed. There is no denying the fact that the documents were obtained by the Petitioner from the Respondent. After settlement of the loan it was the duty of the Petitioner to have returned the same to the Respondent. That the Respondent would be put to great loss if the same are not returned to him, is obvious as the document would prove his title to his assets. We agree with the finding of both the Lower Fora that the documents need to be returned by the Petitioner to the Respondent. However, we do take notice of the contention of the Petitioner, that incase the original documents have been destroyed due to lapse of time and after following due procedures, the same cannot be brought back and returned. In such a situation, the only possible course of action would be to obtain certified copies of the same and hand them over to the Respondent.

14. We find no reason to interfere with the orders of the District Forum as well as the State Commission, except that if the original

documents are truly destroyed, certified copies of the same be obtained by the Petitioner and handed over to the Respondent. The Original/Certified documents be provided within 3 months.