COMPLAINT FILED: 25.04.2009<br /> DISPOSED ON: 15.03.2010 <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 15TH MARCH 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> COMPLAINT NO.944/2009<br /> <br /> COMPLAINANTS 1. Mr. Ravikumar Banakar,<br /> S/o Shankar Rao,<br /> Aged about 38 years. <br /> <br /> 2. Mrs. Mamatha Banakar, <br /> W/o Mr. Ravikumar Banakar,<br /> Aged about 31 years.<br /> <br /> Both are R/at 6, Anugraha,<br /> Chikkavenkatappa Layout,<br /> Krishna Temple Road,<br /> Doddabommasandra,<br /> Vidyaranyapura Post,<br /> Bangalore – 560 097. <br /> <br /> Advocate: Sri. S. Vinod <br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. ICICI Bank Limited, <br /> Registered Office at<br /> ‘Land Mark’,<br /> Race Course Circle,<br /> Vadodara – 390 007.<br /> <br /> <br /> 2. ICICI Bank Limited,<br /> Having branch office at No.5,<br /> 80 feet Road,<br /> Koramangala 7th Block,<br /> Bangalore – 560 095.<br /> <br /> Advocate: Sri. Jai. M. Patil<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA, MEMBER <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed u/s 12 of CP Act 1986, by the complainant, seeking direction against the Opposite Parties (herein after called as O.Ps) to pay Rs.18,12,000/- towards damages for the loss of original title deeds and mental agony with interest at 18% p.a. and costs on the allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. <br /> <br /> 2. The brief averments made in this complaint are as fallows: <br /> <br /> Complainants availed home loan of Rs.8,36,000/- from the 2nd OP for the purchase of a residential property bearing No.6, Byatarayanapura CMC, Ward No.15, Kodigehalli Katha No.109/1A, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. 2nd OP after processing the loan application sanctioned Rs.8,36,000/- under 3 different A/c Nos. i.e., (1) LBBNG00000764997 (2) LBBNG00001289886 (3) LBBNG00000765000 at 14% interest p.a. Sale deed registered on 15.02.2002. At the time of handing over the loan amount cheque OP-2 collected all the original documents pertaining to the said property which are as follows:<br /> <br /> (i) Khatha certificate dt: 28.05.2004<br /> (ii) Sale Deed dt: 26.05.2004 (2 Nos) & 28.05.2004<br /> (iii) Registration receipt dt: 26.05.2004 & 28.05.2004<br /> (iv) Encumbrance Certificate dt: 28.05.2004<br /> (v) Possession letter dt: 13.05.2004<br /> (vi) Copy of approved building plan dt: 28.05.2004<br /> (vii) Tax paid receipt<br /> (viii) Tax Assessment dt: 28.05.2004<br /> (ix) General Power of Attorney dt: 28.05.2004<br /> <br /> OP-2 gave an endorsement dt: 07.10.2008. The copy of the endorsement is produced. In April 2008 complainant enquired with the nationalized bank for take over of their home loan from OP-2 bank to the nationalized bank. Since nationalized bank agreed for the same, complainants requested OP-2 to return the original documents which were in its custody. On 26.05.2008 2nd OP wrote a letter to complainant informing their inability to trace out the original documents and further requested the complainants to provide photocopies of the documents from which they can re-create the same. The copy of that letter is produced. On 04.06.2008 complainants handed over the set of photo copies of the document to the 2nd OP. The copies of the letter are produced. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainants to get the re-created documents went in vain. Complainants got issued legal notice on 04.12.2008. Inspite of service of notice there is no response. Hence complaint felt deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. <br /> <br /> 3. On appearance, OPs 1 and 2 filed version mainly contending that there is no cause of action and valid reasons for any reliefs claimed. Complainants filed this complaint suppressing the fact that the complaint filed before the SCDRC, Bangalore was dismissed. OPs clearly suggested that in order to compensate the loss of documents it would create the duplicate of the same and hand over the certified copy of the same. Complainant agreed and advised OPs to start the process of duplicating the lost documents. OPs have to lodge the police complaint and had taken paper notification about the loss of the documents and are in the process of obtaining the certified copy of the lost documents. Complainants have not mentioned the reasons for which they are entitle for compensation. OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> 4. In order to substantiate the complaint averments complainants filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OPs also filed affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP submitted written submissions. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 5. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as follows:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- Whether the complainants proved the<br /> deficiency in service on the part of the <br /> OPs? <br /> <br /> Point No.2:- Whether the complainants are entitled for<br /> the relief’s claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No.3:- To what Order?<br /> <br /> 6. We have gone through the pleadings of parties both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: <br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative. <br /> <br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part. <br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order. <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 7. At the out set it is not at dispute that the complainants borrowed money from the OP-2 bank to the extent of Rs.8,36,000/- by depositing the title deeds in respect of the immovable property bearing No.6, Byatarayanapura CMC, Ward No.15, Kodgehalli Khatha No.103/1A, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. It is also not at dispute that OP-2 at the time of handing over the loan amount cheque, collected all the original documents pertaining to the said property, endorsement issued by OP-2 dated 07.10.2008 is produced. <br /> <br /> 8. It is contended by the complainant that in April 2008 he came to know that he is paying higher rate of interest to OP-2 compared to other nationalized banks. Hence complainants enquired with the nationalized bank for take over of their loan from OPs to the nationalized bank. When nationalized bank was ready to take over the home loan from the OP-2, complainant requested 2nd OP to return the original documents which were in its custody. 2nd OP after taking sufficient time informed the complainants its inability to trace out the original documents and requested the complainant to provide photo copies of the documents from which it can re-create the same. The letter issued by 2nd OP is produced. Shocked by the response of the 2nd OP, complainants personally met 2nd OP and on their request wrote a letter and handed over the set of photocopies of the documents. The letter dated 04.06.2008 is produced. The repeated efforts made by the complainant for early settlement went in vain. Hence complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.<br /> 9. Complainants filed complaint No.15/09 before Hon’ble SCDRC, Bangalore claimed compensation of Rs.20,12,000/-. The Hon’ble SCDRC dismissed the complaint observing that complainants are not entitle to claim compensation of the value of the property which was subject matter of the sale deed and directed the complainants to approach the District Forum restricting the claim to Rs.20,00,000/-. Hence complainants filed this complaint. <br /> <br /> 10. As against the case of the complainants the defence raised by the OP is that it has taken all the steps to re-create the duplicate documents in order to compensate the loss of the original documents. OP has produced the paper notification 12.06.2009 regarding the misplacement of documents from its custody, but failed to lodge the police complaint. It is argued by the counsel for the complainant that loss of original title deeds will reduce the value of the immovable property in the open market. OP has failed to return the original documents. OP has admitted that the original documents are misplaced, not traceable. In our view it is the gross negligence on the part of the officials of the OPs in misplacing the original documents taken from the complainant while advancing the loan; the same amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. On account of the original documents being not made available the complainant could not avail the services of nationalized bank to take over their home loan advanced by OPs. The rate of interest on the home loans of nationalized banks was lesser compared to the interest charged by OPs. On account of the original documents being not returned the complainants have been put to mental agony and they have to explain to the prospective purchasers of the property with regard to loss of original title deed, when they propose to dispose of the property.<br /> <br /> 11. The complainants have claimed an amount of Rs.18,00,000/- damages towards loss of original title deeds and relevant documents. Rs.10,000/- towards damages on account of mental agony and loss of social respect and Rs.2,000/- towards legal notice charges. The claim is on very higher side without any basis. OP has produced the copy of the judgement in Appeal No.1062/2008 wherein the Hon’ble SCDRC confirmed the order of IV Additional District Forum awarding compensation of Rs.25,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- in similar case. However taking into consideration of all the facts and circumstances we are of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met by awarding compensation of Rs.50,000/- with litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- Accordingly we proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OPs are directed to furnish the certified copies of the documents shown in para 3 of the complaint and pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- with litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant within 4 weeks from the date of communication of this order. <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 15th day of March 2010.) <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> Snm<br />