BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT PUDUCHERRY
Thursday, the 26th day of April 2018
First Appeal No.24 / 2017
Beena Rani, wife of Satheesh Kumar
No.11, "Beena Nivas", Moovendar Street
Mullai Nagar Extension, Orleanpet,
Pondicherry – 605 001.
…. Appellant / Complainant
vs
1. Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd (HDFC)
rep. by Authorised Signatory
Ramon House, HT Parekh Marg,
No.169, Bacbay Reclamation, Churchgate,
Mumbai – 400 020.
2. Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd (HDFC)
rep. by Authorised Signatory
Second Floor, ITC Centre,
No.760, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.
3. Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd (HDFC)
rep. by Authorised Signatory
No.3, Villianur Main Road, Natesan Nagar,
Pondicherry – 605 005.
…. Respondents / Opposite Parties
(On appeal against the order passed by the District Forum, Puducherry in Consumer Complaint No.43/2015 dated 05.10.2017)
In C.C. 43 / 2015
Beena Rani, wife of Satheesh Kumar
No.11, "Beena Nivas", Moovendar Street
Mullai Nagar Extension, Orleanpet,
Pondicherry – 605 001.
… Complainant
Vs
1. Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd (HDFC)
rep. by Authorised Signatory
Ramon House, HT Parekh Marg,
No.169, Bacbay Reclamation, Churchgate,
Mumbai – 400 020.
2. Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd (HDFC)
rep. by Authorised Signatory
Second Floor, ITC Centre,
No.760, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.
3. Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd (HDFC)
rep. by Authorised Signatory
No.3, Villianur Main Road, Natesan Nagar,
Pondicherry – 605 005.
… Opposite parties
BEFORE:
HON’BLE JUSTICE THIRU K. VENKATARAMAN
PRESIDENT
Thiru S. TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE,
MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Thiru M. Lakshmi Narasimhan, Advocate
FOR THE RESPONDENTS:
Thiru U. Mohan Ilayaraja, Advocate, Puducherry
O R D E R
(By Justice Thiru K. Venkataraman, President)
This appeal is directed against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Puducherry dated 05.10.2017 made in
C.C. 43 / 2015.
2. The complainant thereon is the appellant herein and the opposite parties are the respondents.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred in the same position as they have been referred before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Puducherry.
4. The complainant has filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking a direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.17,70,000/- as compensation for losses and damages with interest and to pay a cost of Rs.10,000/-.
5. The facts which are not disputed are that the complainant availed a loan of Rs.5.00 lakhs from the opposite parties on 26.07.2001. She had also availed another loan of Rs.10,75,000/- by depositing title deeds and the entire amount has been paid. However, the opposite parties have not returned the title deeds though several requests have been made. The opposite parties have stated in their reply to the letters sent by the complainant that the documents are inadvertently misplaced and that they would forward them immediately after locating the same.
6. On the other hand, the Reply Version has been filed on behalf of the opposite parties that one Mr. Sathishkumar has availed the loan and hence, he alone is having the right to sue or file a complaint with regard to the loan account. Therefore, the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The complaint has been filed belatedly and on the ground of limitation, the complaint has to be rejected. It is also contended that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain, try and adjudicate the present complaint. Thus, the reply version sought for dismissal of the complaint.
7. Before the District Forum, three points were determined and they are:
- Whether the complainant is a Consumer?
- Whether the OPs have attributed any negligent act leading to deficiency in service to the complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?
8. On the first point, the District Forum has found that since the complainant and her husband Sathishkumar jointly availed the loan under Exs.C1 and C3 from the opposite parties by giving their property viz.Ex.C3 as collateral security to repay the loan amount. They should be considered as Consumers as per provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.
9. On point No.2, the District Forum found that there is deficiency in service by the opposite parties.
10. On point No.3, the District Forum found that the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant as compensation and to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards cost of the complaint.
11. As already stated, the present appeal is filed against the said decision.
12. On point No.1 whether the complainant is a Consumer or not, we are of the view that as has been rightly held by the District Forum, the complainant, along with her husband Sathishkumar, has availed the loan after giving their property as a security and for not returning the documents, the complainant has filed the complaint before the District Forum and hence, the complainant has to be considered as a Consumer as per Consumer Protection Act.
13. Regarding the second point, it has to be seen that the complainant along with her husband availed loan with the opposite parties and cleared the entire loan. The said fact is not disputed even by the opposite parties. Further, that the loan has been granted on the collateral security offered by the complainant along with her husband is also not denied. Further, the fact that the document has been entrusted with the opposite parties for due repayment of the loan amount obtained by them is also not disputed.
14. Though on behalf of the opposite parties it is stated that the complainant is not a necessary party and only Sathishkumar, her husband alone can maintain the complaint, on perusal of Ex.C2 Sale deed which was given as a document for security, stands in the name of the complainant alone. Further, it has to be seen that the EMI was deducted from the accounts of the complainant alone as borne out by Ex.C16. No Due Certificate was issued by the opposite parties under Ex.C9 wherein, it is clearly mentioned that Mr. Sathishkumar and Mrs. Beena Rani, the complainant were granted home loan. Therefore, to say that the complainant is not the necessary party and only her husband is necessary party cannot be accepted.
15. As regards the jurisdiction, on perusal of Ex.C3, it could been seen that the copy of the loan agreement dated 26.08.2009 shows that it has been executed by the complainant along with her husband with the opposite parties in the premises of the third opposite party's office at Pondicherry. Hence, it is sufficient to conclude that the District Forum has got jurisdiction to decide the issue.
16. As regards the limitation point that has been raised on behalf of the opposite parties, it could been seen that though the loan were got by the complaint in the year 2001 and 2005, only on 4.5.2015, under Ex.C15, the opposite parties sent a letter to the complainant stating their inability to return the original title deeds saying that it was misplaced. The cause of action will arise only from the said date. If that is taken into consideration, the complaint filed in 2015 is not out of time. Hence, the said plea taken by the opposite parties also is liable to be rejected.
17. Now the only question that remains to be answered is whether the complainant is entitled to any compensation and if so, what is the amount of compensation?
18. The District Forum relied on the decision reported in CDJ 2017 (Cons.) Case No. 077 [Secretary / Manager, Mayyanad Regional Co-Operative Bank vs Ebrahimkutty] wherein, it was held that "if the original title deed had been lost, the value of the property was bound to be affected and held that the bank was liable to pay compensation to the complainant.
The same view was taken by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai in First Appeal No. 346/2011 [The Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Gandhigram Branch, Dindigul and 2 others vs M. Mohandass]
19. However, it is contended on behalf of the opposite parties that they are prepared to get the certified copies from the proper authorities and it will be given to the complainant and always there is no necessity to have the original title deed. We are not carried away by the said submissions made on the side of the opposite parties. The original title deed is always the original title deed which will have more effect. The same cannot be substituted with the certified copy of the same. Most of the Banks and other Institutions will expect the party who goes for a loan to have his/her original document. Therefore, the contentions raised on behalf of the opposite parties that they are prepared to get the certified copies of the document which has been lost cannot be accepted.
20. The District Forum has awarded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation for the hardship and mental agony suffered to the negligent act and deficiency in service of the opposite parties. However, we are of the view on the facts and circumstances of this case, a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- would be the just compensation. The Counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contented that the National Commission in one of the matter has awarded a compensation of Rs.5.00 lakhs and the said amount could be awarded herein. The Counsel thus cited the decision reported in 2017 STPL 12914 NCDRC in the case of State Bank of India vs Utpal Gope. However, we are of the view that the complainant cannot claim the same compensation as awarded by the National Commission since on the facts and circumstances of the said case, the National Commission has held that Rs.5.00 lakhs would be reasonable. Considering the totality of the circumstances, we are inclined to modify the compensation that has been awarded by the District, Puducherry. Thus, a sum of Rs.3.00 lakhs compensation shall be payable by the opposite parties to the complainant for loss, hardship, mental agony suffered, instead of Rs.1,50,000/- as awarded by the District Forum, Puducherry. A sum of Rs.5000/- has been awarded towards cost by the District Forum and we are of the view that the said sum is just and reasonable. As far as the cost of the present appeal is concerned, we are of the view that a sum of Rs.5000/- would be reasonable to grant to the complainant.
21. Thus, the appeal is allowed to the extent stated above.
Dated this the 26th day of April 2018.
(Justice K. VENKATARAMAN)
PRESIDENT
(S. TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE)
MEMBER
