Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 396
Instituted on : 26.07.2023.
Decided on : 01.07.2024.
Yogesh Sharma age 38 years, s/o Sh. Shiv Kumar Sharma R/o 101. Subhash Nagar, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- HDFC Bank Ltd., 1st Floor, Sector-14, Gurugram through its Manager.
- HDFC Bank Ltd., Civil Road, Ashoka Plaza, Rohtak through its Branch Manager.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,2019.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Raghav Batra, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Tarun Budhiraja, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that he had availed a house loan of Rs.3000000/- vide loan account No.633162732 from the opposite party No.1 for purchasing a flat bearing no.G-08 at Cosmos Executive Apartment Palam Vihar, Gurugram. As per the terms and conditions of the aforesaid loan account the complainant pledged/mortgaged his registered sale deed 03.04.2018 alongwith various other documents against the loan amount and same were handed over to the respondent no.1 at the time of availing the aforesaid loan in original. The complainant has paid his entire loan amount and last full and final payment was made on 17.01.2023 vide cheque no.645654 amounting to Rs.65737/- drawn on City Bank, Gurugram. The complainant foreclosed his loan on 18.01.2023 and received the original documents on dated 21.02.2023 except the original latest sale deed dated 03.07.2018. The complainant requested the opposite parties time and again orally by visiting to the office of opposite parties but each and every time the concerned official has not provided any solution and replied that they were searching the original sale deed dated 03.07.2018 and will return the same very soon. Complainant again requested the opposite parties on 05.06.2023 and 26.06.2023 to return the original sale deed but to no effect. The complainant has paid stamp duty of Rs.405000/- and registration fee and other charges of Rs.55000/- on the sale deed. It is further submitted that the alleged misplacement of documents indicates negligence and carelessness in handling documents on the part of opposite parties. The complainant visited time and again to the office of opposite parties but the officials of opposite parties failed to provide the original sale deed to the complainant. The act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to hand over the original sale deed of flat no.G-08 to the complainant alongwith Rs.1000000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties alongwith cost of litigation Rs.22000 and Rs.2500/- as other legal expenses. It is further prayed that in case of untrace or unreturned of the above mentioned sale deed, Rs.100000/- may kindly be awarded as compensation and Rs.50000/- as cost to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in their written reply has submitted the complainant has already received the original sale deed on 03.08.2023 even prior to the next date of hearing before this Hon’ble Commission. Thus once the main grievance of the complainant has been redressed, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this sole ground only. It is further submitted that opposite parties in response to complainant’s request on 05.06.2023 and 26.06.2023 informed the complainant on 19.06.2023 and 26.06.2023 respectively that his request is under process and will be updated as soon as the process is completed. It is further submitted that due to heavy work load and amalgamation with HDFC Bank, there was slight delay in handling the title deed to the complainant but there was no negligence on the part of opposite parties. The opposite parties made sincere efforts to trace the sale deed and ultimately handed over the original sale deed to the complainant on 03.08.2023 even prior to the next date of hearing before this Hon’ble Commission. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1, affidavit Ex.CW2/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 & affidavit Ex.CW2/A and closed his evidence on 31.10.2023. Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 and closed his evidence on dated 04.03.2024.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the last payment was made by the complainant on 17.01.2023 and a legal notice was sent by the complainant on 05.07.2023 to the opposite party. But the opposite party has handed over the documents on 03.08.2023 during the pendency of the complaint. As the time of arguments, the complainant has demanded only compensation on account of deficiency is service and litigation expenses. The perusal of the documents shows that the complainant has deposited the last installment with the bank on 17.01.2023 and the bank issued a letter to the complainant regarding this effect on dated 17.01.2023 which has been placed on record by the complainant as Ex.C1. In this document it has been specifically mentioned that the documents are in their safe custody and will be released within 45 days. Meaning thereby the documents should be released to the complainant within 45 days but as per the bank itself they have handed over the documents to the complainant on 03.08.2023 i.e. belatedly after more than 6½ months. It has been admitted by the opposite party that they respond to the complaints of the complainant made on 05.06.2023 and 26.06.2023 on 19.06.2023 and 26.06.2023 that his request is under process. Meaning thereby upto 26.06.2023 the bank failed to trace out the important documents of the complainant. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. In this regard complainant has placed reliance upon the law of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in case titled as Branch Manager, SBI Vs. Amitesh Mazumder, whereby Hon’ble National Commission has held that : “The compensation awarded by the fora below was eminently justified on account of the petitioner bank having lost the Title Deeds of the immovable property of the complainant. The revision petition is therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs”. Ld. Counsel has also placed reliance upon IV(2020)CPJ235(NC) titled as State Bank of India Vs. Vallu Sowjanya as per which Hon’ble National Commission has held that: “Original sale deeds were lost by the bank-Complainant needs to be compensated for the loss of value of her property. Additional compensation of Rs.1 lakh awarded”. In the cases referred above, the original documents were lost by the bank but in the present case the documents have been handed over to the complainant by the bank. However, due to not receiving his documents for more than 6 months, he might have suffered a lot of inconvenience, mental agony and harassment. As such there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay a compensation of Rs.50000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) on account of deficiency in service alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint till its retaliation and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
01.07.2024.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
...............................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
…………………………………………
Vijender Singh, Member.
