Date of Filing:15.06.2007<br /> Date of Order: 14.02.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> Dated: 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2008<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1184 OF 2007 <br /> <br /> P.V. Antony,<br /> S/o P.A. Varghese,<br /> ‘Archana’, No.45, I ‘A’ Main,<br /> 7th Block, Koramangala,<br /> Bangalore-560 095. Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> 1. The Manager,<br /> HSBC Bank, Bangalore Branch,<br /> No.7, M.G. Road Branch,<br /> Bangalore-560 001.<br /> <br /> 2. Chairman,<br /> HSBC Umang, Plot CTS,<br /> No.1405-A/28, Mind Space,<br /> Behind Inorbit Mall,<br /> New Link Road, Malad(West),<br /> Mumbai-400 064.<br /> <br /> 3. Manager,<br /> Citi Bank N.A,<br /> I Floor, Shubram Complex, 144,<br /> M.G. Road Branch, Bangalore-560 001. Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to return remaining 8 original documents and compensation.<br /> The facts of the case are that, the complainant is a owner of property bearing No.45 situated at Koramangala, Bangalore measuring 1200 sq.ft., with the house constructed therein having ground and first floor constructing measuring about 16 sq.ft., built up area. The complainant availed housing loan of Rs. 2,59,240.78/- under loan account No.071-0744231-220, repayable in monthly installments of Rs.4,086/- each of 108 equal monthly installments with the opposite party on 26/7/2001 by depositing original documents of sale deeds, Katha certificates, ECs’ as collateral security. The receipts of the said documents were duly acknowledged by the opposite party No.1 and copy of the same is produced. The complainant has repaid the entire loan and requested for return of original documents. The opposite party No.1 on 19/4/2007 informed the complainant to collect 20 undated cheques and the original sale deed dated 14/2/1994, and the letter to BDA authorities for release of lien as per document No.4. The opposite party No.1 did not return all the original documents except the sale deed dated 14/2/1994. Accordingly, on 24/4/2007 the complainant informed the opposite party No.1 that except the sale deed executed by Smt. Gowramma, the other 8 original documents held by the respondent Bank and were not delivered and requested them to handover the same. The complainant got issued a legal notice to respondents on 3/5/2007 calling upon to return the original documents. The complainant entered into an agreement for sale of property on 6/3/2007 with one Devika Rani and received an advance of Rs.12,00,000/-. As per the terms of the agreement, the complainant is suppose to give all the original documents of title for scrutiny 15 days prior to the proposed date of execution of Sale Deed. Three months time was stipulated for the completion of the sale as per the terms of the agreement. The complainant agreed to sell the property for Rs.1,20,00,000/- and due to the non-availability of the original documents, the deal did not take place and the complainant is bound to return the sum of Rs.12,00,000/- received as advance with interest and costs. After entering into the agreement of sale of the said property the complainant entered into an agreement for the purchase of a house site in Vijaya Bank Colony for a total consideration of Rs.42,50,000/- and paid a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- as advance. The complainant could not pay the balance sale consideration and purchase the said property as he could not sell his property as per the terms of agreement dated 6/3/2007. The complainant has suffered heavy loss due to the negligence on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, the complaint.<br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite party. Opposite parties put in appearance and filed defense version stating that, the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 for the purpose of availing home loan and accordingly a sum of Rs.2,59,340.78/- has been disbursed to the complainant. The opposite parties admitted that, the loan was sanctioned against the property as mentioned the complaint. Whereas it is false to state that the time of sanctioning the loan, the complainant had deposited nine original documents listed at para-2 of the complaint. The complainant may be put to strict proof of the same. As the complainant had handed over the original sale deed dated 14/02/1994 and executed the other loan documents clearly showing his intention to mortgage. It is also false to state that the complainant had handed over the said nine documents to one Mr. C.K. Kishan of the opposite party No.1 on 9/11/2001. It is relevant to state that after receiving the cashier order, shelter had handed over all the documents, which were held by them to the complainant. The said cashier order was received by the complainant on 16/8/2001 and hence there is no chance of the complainant handing over the original documents to the said person on 19/11/2001. Hence, the allegation that the opposite party No.1 had received the original documents from complainant on 19/11/2001 is hereby denied. It is true that the complainant issued a letter on 24/04/2007 requesting the opposite party No.1 to return the other original documents. It is further false to state that, the complainant had entered into an agreement dated 6/3/2007 for the purpose of purchasing a house site at Vijaya Bank Colony for a total consideration of Rs.42,50,000/- and out of that Rs.7,00,000/- paid as advance amount. As the loan amount was disbursed on 8/8/2007 and thereafter the complainant had produced original sale deed dated 14/2/1994 by signing the other loan documents of the opposite party No.1, the opposite party did not insist for the other document. For all these reasons stated above, the opposite parties are prayed to dismiss the complainant. <br /> 3. Affidavit evidence of both the parties filed. Arguments heard. <br /> <br /> 4. The points for consideration are:-<br /> 1. Whether there was a deficiency in service on the <br /> part of the opposite party No.1 and 2 or there is <br /> a deficiency in service on the part of opposite <br /> party No.3? <br /> <br /> 2. To what order?<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. It is an admitted case of the parties that, the complainant had taken loan from the opposite party No.3 Citi Bank, Bangalore by depositing documents. The opposite party No.3 has given a letter stating that the documents from Serial No. 1 to 9 have been deposited with opposite party No.3. In this letter customer’s name is mentioned as P.V. Antony and this letter has been signed by an authorized signatory. This letter bears no date. So as per this letter it is clear that, the complainant had deposited original documents including the sale deed executed by BDA in favour of Smt. Gowramma dated 3/8/1987. The opposite party No.3 in its defense version had also clearly admitted about the deposit of title deeds by the complainant. The complainant opted for pre-closer of the loan availed from the opposite party No.3. Opposite party No.1 HSBC Bank N.A, Bangalore sent a cashier order for Rs.2,59,340-78 being full and final payment of outstanding loan amount of P.V. Antony and the said letter further says please acknowledge receipt and hand over of documents related to the above loan account to the bearer of this letter. It is better to reproduce the letter of HSBC for better appreciation of the case.<br /> HSBC<br /> Citi Bank, NA Date: 14th August-2001<br /> Bangalore.<br /> <br /> Dear Sir/Madam<br /> <br /> HOME LOAN ACCOUNT-P.V. Antony<br /> <br /> We enclose Cashier Order No.101868 dated 08 August 2001 for Rs. 2,59,340-78 favouring yourselves, being full and final payment of outstanding on the above loan account.<br /> <br /> Please acknowledge receipt and hand over all documents related to the above loan account to the bearer of this letter. <br /> <br /> Yours faithfully<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Retail Assets Officer P.V. Antony<br /> Ext.2099 16.08.01<br /> <br /> Encl <br /> <br /> On this letter signature of complainant is found. He has signed on this letter on 16/8/2001. The HSBC Bank admittedly has not authorized C.K. Kishan to receive the documents from opposite party No.3. In the letter dated 14th August-2001 HSBC Bank has not stated that document be handed over to C.K. Kishan. On the other hand, on this letter the complainant has signed. The complainant very much relied upon the writings made on the list of documents prepared by the list of documents there is an endorsement as follows:-<br /> Received the above documents in original on 9/11/2001 by (C.K. Kishan) HSBC<br /> <br /> <br /> Complainant relied on this endorsement is putting blame on HSBC that he has not received the original sale deed executed by BDA in favour of Smt. Gowramma. First of all C.K. Kishan is not an authorized person to receive the documents. Secondly, HSBC Bank has not written any letter to the opposite party No.3 to hand over the documents to C.K. Kishan. Thirdly, who is K.C. Kishan and what is his position and authority is not clear. Merely by producing visiting card of Kishan it cannot be said that he is an authorized person of HSBC Bank. How can the opposite party No.1 and 2 are responsible for the documents received by C.K. Kishan. The complainant has not produced affidavit of C.K. Kishan before this Forum to establish that he had received the documents on behalf of HSBC. Complainant has not produced any records or documents to show that C.K. Kishan is a duly authorized person of HSBC. Opposite party No.3 has not obtained any acknowledgement or receipt or any documents from HSBC to show that all the documents were deposited with opposite party No.3 by the complainant while obtaining loan. Therefore, it is the duty of the opposite party No.3 to hand over the documents to the complainant with proper acknowledgement. But in this case opposite party No.3 after receiving the cashier order from HSBC Bank had not returned the documents to the HSBC Bank under proper acknowledgement and documents. So under these circumstances, the HSBC Bank cannot be held responsible for loss of original sale deed. If at all there was any deficiency in service, it is on the part of the opposite party No.3 Citi Bank. The Citi Bank has acted in utter negligence and irresponsible. The documents have not been handed over to proper person under proper authority. Therefore, the opposite party No.3 should be held responsible for loss of original sale deed. The opposite party No.1 and 2 are not at all responsible for the loss of original sale deed. Because the complainant has not proved or established that original document was handed over to the HSBC Bank by the opposite party No.3 by the mode known to law. Therefore, the opposite party No.1 and 2 are not at all liable for any action since the documents were deposited with opposite party No.3 by the complainant and the opposite party No.3 should take responsibility for loss of the documents. The opposite party No.3 should have taken proper care in handing over all the original documents to the complainant after closing the loan account. But in this case, the opposite party No.3 acted in a very reckless manner in not handing over the documents under proper person under proper authority. So under these circumstances, responsibilities shall be fixed on opposite party No.3 Citi Bank only. The complainant has purchased property from Smt. Gowramma under sale deed and Smt. Gowramma in turned had taken property from the BDA in the year 1987. As regards the documents from serial No.2 to 9 the complainant has no grievance, he has received the document. The complainant is very much particular in respect of non receipt of sale deed executed by BDA in favour of Smt. Gowramma. No doubt the complainant may obtain certified copy of the sale deed from the Sub-Registrar Office. Still it is better that he should have original documents. The mother document is an old document of the year 1987 and the complainant has purchased the property from Smt. Gowramma in the year 1984 under registered sale deed and after purchase katha is effected in his name. He has paid tax and also obtained Encumbrance Certificate. Therefore, the complainant may not require the mother document for his future transactions. But however, it is prerogative of the complainant to posses mother document. But in this case, due to the negligence and carelessness of opposite party No.3 the complainant could not receive the original documents. Therefore, the complainant shall be suitably compensated for deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel it would be just fare and reasonable to award compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant for not receiving the original sale deed. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:- <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 6. The complaint is partly allowed. The complaint against opposite party No.1 and 2 stands dismissed. The opposite party No.3 Citi Bank N.A is ordered to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the complainant. The complainant is also entitled to Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the present proceedings. <br /> 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> <br /> 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2008.<br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> We concur the above findings. <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br />