Complainant Lakhbir Singh has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite parties to deliver the documents to him i.e. sale deed and clearance certificate. Opposite parties be also directed to pay him Rs.16,00,000/- as the amount paid by him as Biana which has been forfeited due to negligence of the opposite parties alongwith compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment and emotional distress suffered by him, in the interest of justice.

2.      The case of the complainant in brief is that he applied for Housing Loan in January 2003 in ICICI Bank Mall Road, Amritsar  and the same has been sanctioned in the sum of Rs.3,75,000/-. Against his property sale deed of which was duly deposited by him with the bank. The installments which were fixed by the bank were paid on 11.3.2013. The last installment of the loan was also paid of Rs.4412/- on dated 11.3.2013 and the letter from the Head Office was received by him of the Head Branch Office of ICICI Bank Ltd. Land Mark Race/course Circle Vadodra on 21.3.2013 in which the Head Office i.e. opposite party no.1 directed him to collect their original property documents/loan clearance certifies from the ICICI Bank where he had deposited the registered sale deed of the plot which he has purchased on 10.1.2013 for Rs.8,80,000/-. He has further pleaded that he visited the Bank for collecting the sale deed and other documents but he could not procure the said documents. He visited the concerned bank for collecting documents on 29.3.2013, 11.4.2013, 18.4.2013, 25.4.2013, 30.4.2013 and 25.5.2013 but could not receive the above mentioned documents due to misplacement or lost by the bank.  He also informed the Bank Manager of the Head office opposite party no.1 through letter. In between he made several agreements with the other persons i.e. as under, with one Sajjan Singh son of Gurdip Singh son of Sohan Singh, resident of Fatehgarh Churian for purchasing one house of single storey consisting on 5Marlas i.e. 5/160 out of 8 kanals bearing Khasra No.6R/16(2-9) 17(2-18)18/1(1-6)24/1(1-7) for Rs.3 lacs out of which an earnest money of Rs.50,000/- was paid on 7.3.2011 and again Rs.30,000/- was also paid in advance on 17.2.2012 and balance amount was paid at the time of execution registration of the sale deed. He made another agreement dated 24.6.2011 with Kulwant Singh son of Gurnam Singh of village Sarfkot Tehsil Dera Baba Nanak of 6 Marlas single storey house on 6 Marlas for a sumof Rs.3,00,000/- and an earnest money of Rs.1,50,000/- was paid on 24.6.2011. Again Rs.50,000/- was advance on 16.6.2012. Rest of the money was to be paid on 14.6.2013 at the time of registration of the sale deed. He has next pleaded that another agreement was made by him with Desa Singh son of Mohinder Singh dated 25.10.2011 for a 6 Marla single storey house at village Samrai Tehsil dera Baba Nanak for Rs.3,00,000/- and an earnest money of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid on 25.10.2011 and again Rs.90,000/- was paid on 29.10.2012 and remaining sale consideration was to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. Another agreement dated 10.5.2012 was made with Smt.Jaswant Kaur wife of Manjit Singh r/o vill.Samrai Tehsil Batala for the purchase of single storey house measuring 6 Marla bearing Khasra No.6R/24/2(6-11)to the extent of 6/133 share for a sum of Rs.3,20,000/- and earnest money of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid through cheque No.198104 dated 10.5.2012. Rest of the money was to be paid at the time of registration of sale deed on 7.6.2013. Another agreement was made with Gurdev Singh son of Gopal Singh resident of Shri Chand Avenue Majitha Bye Pass Road Amritsar of single storey house of 5 Marla for Rs.15,00,000/- and earnest money of Rs.10,00,000/- was paid on 15.3.2012 and the remaining amount was to be paid on 15.3.2013 at the time of Registration of sale deed and another agreement was made with Santokh Singh son of Piara Singh for purchase of land measuring 8 kanal i.e. 160/860 share bearing khasra No.6R/22, 23, 24, 16R/4, 6, 7/1, 13/1, 17/1 Khewat No.74 Khatoni 131 jamabandi for the year 2008-09 of village Baddo H B No.338 Tehsil Batala Distt.Gurdaspur for a sum ofRs.10,00,000/- and earnest money of Rs.3,00,000/- was paid on 11.12.2012. Remaining money was to be paid on 13.13.2013 at the time of execution of the sale deed and if any of the agreed parties would not perform his contact, his earnest money would be forfeited.  Hence, he has suffered huge loss to the tune of Rs.16,00,000/- due to negligence on the part of the opposite parties because the opposite parties did not deliver the sale deed to him. Hence this complaint.

3.       Upon notice, opposite parties filed their written reply through their counsel by taking preliminary objections to the effect that the complainant has  no cause of action to file the present complaint; the complainant has no locus standi to file the present suit.  A letter has been sent to the complainant to get his loan clearance certificate and property documents in original only if it has been deposited. In present case no such sale deed has been deposited by the complainant after purchase of the plot. Even no receipt has been produced by the complainant to show that the original sale deed has been deposited with the bank. So, the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. There is no deficiency in services on the part of the opposite parties; as the complainant previously filed a civil suit on the same ground titled as “ Lakhbir Singh Vs. ICICI Bank” which was pending in the court of Sh.Harpreet Singh, Civil Judge (Jr.Div.), Batala and the same has been withdrawn, also filed a consumer on the same grounds case before the learned DCDRF Gurdaspur titled as Lakhbir Singh Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd, and withdrawn the same also as such the present complaint is not maintainable; the complainant has previously sent notices to the Bank which was properly replied by letter dated 16 January 2014 and it is informed that as per Bank records, Bank has not received the sale Deed from the complainant. However as a service gesture, Bank is willing to initiate steps at their cost for obtaining certified copies of the documents upon receiving a copy of the Sale Deed. Filing/lodging of First Information Report about the loss of Sale Deed. Issuing a public notice in a local newspaper. Obtaining certified copies of the aforesaid Sale Deed from the office of the Sub Registrar. The recreation process will be completed within 45 working days from the date of receipt of the written consent of complainant. Till date complainant has not reverted the Bank, not provided the copies of sale deed and also not cooperating instead of that filed this complaint therefore the same is not maintainable. On merits, it was submitted that the loan has been sanctioned for the purchase of plot and the amount of loan has been released without depositing the sale deed. The complainant has to deposit the sale deed after getting it executed and registered from the purchaser after paying the sale consideration, but the complainant never deposited the original sale deed and is still pending as per record of the bank. Even the complainant has not produced any receipt to show that any such sale deed has been received by the Bank. It was also submitted that the loan installments has been paid by the complainant. The letter has been sent to the complainant in the letter it has been intimated to the complainant that all the dues have been cleared and the loan case has been closed in our system. The purpose of this letter is to intimate the customer regarding the status of his installments and to collect the original papers if any deposited and to get the Loan Clearance Certificate. The letter sent is cyclostyle one and in the letter it has been nowhere mentioned that the original sale deed is within the bank. The complainant is misinterpreting the letter and is alleging that original sale deed has been delivered to the bank. Actually, original sale deed never delivered to the bank. Even it is not a housing loan. It was a plot purchase case of Rs.3,75,000/-, sanctioned on 16 October 2002 in the name of Lakhbir Singh. As per list of documents the sale deed was not with the bank. As per bank record sale deed was shown as pending. The complainant has not produced any receipt to show that any such document i.e. sale deed has been deposited with the   bank. The matter of fact is that as this was a plot purchase case. In that case firstly the bank has to release the amount and after that the party got executes and register the sale deed from the purchase after paying the sale consideration. After that the sale deed was to be deposited, but no such sale deed has ever been deposited by the plaintiff. It was next submitted that the letters dated 22 May, 2013 and 1 July, 2013 has been sent by the complainant which has been duly replied by the opposite parties. The story made is false and frivolous. The bank has no link with the matter. The sale deed never delivered to the bank. It was wrong and denied that complainant made several agreements with other persons as alleged by the complainant and any such amount has been paid by him. The complainant has filed the present complaint only to harass the opposite party bank. First of all no such sale deed has been deposited with the bank, but even otherwise the certified copy of sale deed can easily be got from the registering authority by paying nominal fee. All other contents of the present complaint have been denied by the opposite party in its written reply. Lastly, the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs. 

4        Lakhbir Singh complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C31 except Ex.C5 and closed the evidence. 

5.       Sh.Harshit Jain, authorized signatory tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-1, alongwith other documents Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-8 and closed the evidence.

6.          We have carefully examined and thoroughly considered the evidence along with its supporting documents as available on records of the proceedings while adjudicating the present complaint. We observe that the complainant had raised the Housing Loan from the OP Bank jointly with his wife Paramjit Kaur as co-borrower as per Ex.OP7 the Loan application cum sanction dated 31.12.2002 & Loan Agreement Ex.OP8 dated 25.12 2002 and purchased the Plot No. 1 (1000 sq yd) at: New Ranjit Vihar, Gumtala, Amritsar; vides Sale Deed # 11604 on 10.01.2003; against the Equitable Mortgage (by deposit of original Title Deeds) of the Plot under purchase. However, in cases where original Title Deeds are yet to be created through Purchase (as in the present case) disbursement of Loan is made first and de-facto equitable mortgage is created afterwards through deposit of the subsequently procured Title Deeds through purchase of property. And, in such cases it becomes an obligatory & legal duty of both the mortgage-e Bank and the mortgagor Borrower to ensure the sure-deposit of the purchase-procured Title Deed. However, in the present case the Title Deed was created on 10.01.2003 through purchase (whereas the Loan was disbursed on 31.12.2002) and its De’facto-deposit (including its date of deposit) with the OP Bank is not available on the records. Further, the OP Bank alleges having never received the title deed whereas the complainant has also failed to prove its deposit with the Bank; although its photocopy stands produced on records as Ex.C6 duly proving that the title deed came into the hands of the complainant after its registration. It is also not understood as to how the OP Bank could not notice the ‘absence’ of the original Title Deeds from its records (through non-deposit or otherwise) and thus turning the ‘equitable mortgage’ into an ab-initio nullity. Moreover, the complainant has failed to prove any loss incurred to him on account of the ‘non-availability’ of the original Title Deed. The ‘Sale agreements’ produced by the complainant (Ex.C7 to Ex.C12) include the ones pertaining to the other properties intended to be purchased by him and if he means encashment of the ‘sale proceeds’ of the mortgaged property he could have easily ‘revoked’ the mortgage by repaying the full loan amount and selling the ‘redeemed property’ on the strength of the Clearance Certificate and title ‘Fard’ duly procured from the Halqa Patwari (that otherwise is also requisite to execute a ‘fresh’ sale) along with an additional Affidavit deposing the un-traceability/ non-availability of its original title Deed. Under the Transfer of Property Act’ 1882 all types of transfers/mortgages are ‘valid’ if duly created by the substituted documents of title except the Equitable Mortgage for which the one and the only original Title Deeds shall be necessary to create a legally valid mortgage.     

7.       In the light of the all above, we find that the present dead-end lock-up situation i.e., un-traceability of the original title deed has been the resultant outcome of the mutual and common negligence on the part of both the complainant and the OP Bank since its deposit had been the joint and several (statutory) responsibility of both and thus the OP Bank alone cannot be held ‘negligent’ (deficient in service) under the Act; and moreover the OP Bank has also offered to manage ‘issuance’ of the ‘certified copy’ of the original Title Deed (although it shall be only a poor option to the non-substitutable original deed) from the office of the Sub Registrar, Amritsar. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint shall be best disposed of by directing the OP Bank to manage issuance of the Certified Copy of the Sale Deed Ex.C6 and deliver it to the complainant along with the ‘Loan Clearance Certificate’ etc. besides to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation within 30 days of the receipt of copy of orders.   

8.      Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record. 

                                                            (Naveen Puri)

                                                                        President

ANNOUNCED:                                            (Jagdeep Kaur)

August, 26 2015.                                         Member                       

*MK*