STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Parvesh Gupta, R/o House No.294, Sector 51-A, Chandigarh

                   ..…Appellant

V E R S U S

1.                 HDFC Bank Ltd., SCO No.405-406, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh.

2.                 HDFC Bank Ltd., Retail Asset-Customer Service, 26-A, Narayan Properties, Chandivali, Off Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai 400072

                                                                                 ....Respondents

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:    HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                   MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

Argued by:  Sh.Aman Dhir, Advocate for the appellant

                   Sh. Sandeep Suri, Adv. for respondents .

PER  JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

1.                           This appeal is directed against the order dated 21.12.2010, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it accepted the complaint with the following directions to the OPs:-

“ i)     The complainant may take up the matter with the Chandigarh Housing Board for getting fresh/duplicate allotment letter and other documents by presenting the original receipt of the payments made by him to them.

ii)       The Ops will refund the foreclosure charges of Rs.10,113/- to the complainant.

iii)      The Ops will also pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for the harassment caused to him due to loss of documents, as well as Rs.2500/- as cost of litigation

The aforesaid payments shall be made to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the Ops would be liable to pay interest on the decreed amount of Rs.20,113/- at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of this order till the date of actual payment, besides paying Rs.2,500/- as cost of litigation. They will also assist the complainant whenever needed for obtaining the relevant documents from C.H.B".

2.                           The facts, in brief, are that the complainant took the  housing loan of Rs.6,00,000/- from the Centurion Bank of Punjab, Chandigarh on 15.01.2004. Since, he wanted to transfer his loan account to HDFC Bank, he returned a sum of Rs.4,90,000/- on 04.07.2008 alongwith foreclosure charges amounting to Rs.10,113/-, to Centurion Bank. Thereafter, the loan was transferred to the OPs (now respondents), which was to be repaid over a period of 8 years, in equal monthly installments of Rs.7,698/-. The complainant was promised by the officials of the Centurion Bank, that he would get back his original documents, within 20 days. Thereafter, the Centurion Bank merged with the HDFC Bank. The Complainant remained in regular touch with the officials, of the bank for more than 3 months for the return of documents, but nothing was done. It was stated that despite the fact that the original documents were with the OPs, and the complainant was making regular payments of monthly installments, the OPs demanded security and he was forced to pledge his LIC policy of Rs.2,00,000/- with them. It was further stated that not satisfied with the OPs, the complainant wanted to get the loan transferred to some other Bank. He then wrote a letter dated 4.11.2008 to the OPs, to return his original documents. In response, he received a letter dated 27.11.2008, from the OPs, stating that the documents were lost. It was further stated that the OPs offered to get a fresh set of documents, recreated through the concerned Registering Authority, and sought time of 45 days. In the meanwhile, the complainant continued paying high rate of interest i.e. 11% per annum, whereas, the other Banks were charging interest @8% per annum. Thereafter, the complainant wrote a letter dated 07.08.2009 to the Ops, and also served a legal notice dated 23.11.2009 but no action was taken by them, for handing over the original documents. It was further stated that the OPs were deficient in rendering service. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only) was filed.

3.                           In reply filed by the Ops, the factual matrix of the case was admitted. It was stated that only the agreed rate of interest was charged from the complainant. It was denied that any other Bank offered interest on loan @ 8% per annum. It was admitted that the original allotment letter which was deposited by the complainant, with the Bank was lost by its officials. It was stated that the OPs applied to the Chandigarh Housing Board for recreating the documents and processing fee was also deposited on 06.01.2009. It was further stated that since the file was not traceable, in the Chandigarh Housing Board, the duplicate papers could not be issued. It was further stated that loss of original allotment letter was not intentional and might have occurred, at the time of merger of the Centurion Bank of Punjab, with the OPs. It was further stated that there was, thus, neither deficiency in rendering service, on the part of the Ops, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice.

4.                           The parties led evidence, in support of their case. 

5.                           After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to in the opening para of this order.

6.                           Feeling aggrieved, against the inadequacy of compensation awarded to the complainant, and non-return of the original document, the instant appeal, was filed, by the appellant/complainant.

7.                           We have heard the Counsel for the parties and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case carefully.

8.                           The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that till date, the original allotment letter or the certified copy thereof had not been handed over to him, by the respondents/OPs. He further submitted that the complainant had to suffer a lot of physical harassment, mental agony and inconvenience, for a number of years, on account of loss of his original allotment letter, which was submitted by him, before the Centurion Bank, which merged with the OPs. He further submitted that the compensation awarded by the District Forum, is too meagre, to meet the ends of justice. He further submitted that it was the duty of the respondents/Ops, to handover to him either the original document, submitted by him (complainant/appellant) before them, or to get supplied him the certified/duplicate copy thereof. He further submitted that the compensation awarded by the District Forum, be enhanced. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum be modified accordingly.

9.                           On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents, submitted that the complainant only deposited the original allotment letter, with the Centurion Bank, which merged with the OPs. He further submitted that the respondents tried to get the duplicate allotment letter prepared from the Chandigarh Housing Board, but the relevant file was found to have been lost. He further submitted that, in case, the complainant produced the original receipts, regarding the payments made by him, to the Chandigarh Housing Board, his file would be traced and revived, and duplicate allotment letter would be supplied to him. He further submitted that this exercise could only be undertaken by the complainant, and not by the OPs. He further submitted that the Ops have already applied for the issuance of a duplicate allotment letter, after depositing the fee, required for processing the case but until or unless, the complainant cooperated, in the manner referred to above, with them, the duplicate allotment letter could not be supplied to him. He further submitted that the compensation of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the District Forum, is fair and reasonable, and, no ground for enhancement of the same is made out.

10.                      After giving our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions advanced by the Counsel for the parties, in our considered opinion, the appeal deserves to be partly accepted, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. Admittedly, the complainant, deposited the original allotment letter, with the Centurion Bank, which merged with the OPs/respondents. It was the duty of the OPs to keep this document, in safe custody. If, on account of the negligence of the officials of the OPs/respondents, the allotment letter was lost, then they were certainly responsible for such loss. No doubt, it is established, from the record, as also, submitted by the Counsel for the respondents, at the time of arguments, that the respondents have already applied for the issuance of a duplicate copy of the allotment letter, to the Chandigarh Housing Board after depositing the fee required for processing the case, but the original file was not traceable. The complainant was required to cooperate with the OPs/respondents, by producing the original receipts, regarding the payments having been made to the Chandigarh Housing Board, for the allotment of the house and, on the basis thereof, the Housing Board officials, could possibly trace his file, and supply him the certified/duplicate copy of the allotment letter. There is nothing, on record, that the complainant cooperated with the respondents/OPs, in undertaking that exercise. The complainant is, thus, directed to cooperate with the Ops, in the manner, referred to above.

11.                      Now coming to the amount of compensation, it may be stated here, that the same is certainly meagre. It was, on account of the negligence, on the part of the officials of the Ops/respondents, that the original allotment letter, which was deposited with them, by the complainant, was lost. In the absence of the original allotment letter, the complainant had to furnish another security, by way of pledging his LIC policy of Rs.2,00,000/- with the respondents, for no fault of his. One can well imagine the condition of a person, whose original allotment letter regarding the allotment of house, was lost by the OPs, on account of the acts of the respondents. The OPs were, thus, deficient in rendering service. Immense physical harassment and mental agony was caused to the appellant. It is settled principle of law, that the compensation, should be fair and reasonable. It should commensurate with the facts and circumstances of the case, as also the, harassment and mental agony caused to the complainant, and financial loss suffered by him. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, the compensation of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the District Forum, is not just and fair. It is liable to be enhanced to Rs.25,000/-. The submission of the Counsel for the respondents, in this behalf deserves to be partly accepted.

12.                      For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is partly accepted with no order as to costs and the order of the District Forum is modified in the following manner:-

(a)   The appellant/complainant shall cooperate with the respondents/OPs and produce the original receipts, regarding the payments, made by him, to the Chandigarh Housing Board for the allotment of house, before the Board and complete other formalities, within 40 days, from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, as the original allotment letter thereof, has already been lost, so that his file could be located, and he may be issued the certified copy/duplicate allotment letter, as the Ops/respondents have already applied for the same, after depositing the fee required for processing the case on 06.01.2009.

(b)  The respondents shall pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant instead of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the District Forum, for immense physical harassment and mental agony caused to him, on account of the loss of his original allotment letter.

(c)   The remaining relief(s) granted and directions given by the District Forum shall remain intact.

13.            Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

21.07.2011

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER