DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESAL COMMISSION
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C.C. No. 218/2021
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
21.09.2021 01.10.2021 28.06.2022
Complainant/s:- | SRI GOUTAM CHANDA, S/o Sunil Chanda, Residing at 36/5, Sree Nagar, P.O. Barasat, P.S. Barasat, Dist: North 24 Pgs, Kolkata – 700124 presently residing at “Dashabhuja Apartment” 426, Shalbagan Road, Ward No. 22, Barasat, P.O. Noapara, Pin – 700125. Mobile:- 9830244707 = Vs = |
Opposite Party/s:- | - IDBI BANK LTD., of AC-32, Bidisha Apartment, 1st Floor, Krishnapur, Prafullakanan, P.S. Baguihati, P.O. Prafullakanan, Kolkata – 700101.
- IDBI BANK LTD., Reg. Office at, IDBI Tower, WTC Complex, Cuffe Parade, P.S. Cuffe Parade, P.O. Colaba, Mumbai – 400005.
|
P R E S E N T :- Shri Debasis Mukhopadhyay…………President.
:- Smt. Monisha Shaw …………………. Member.
JUDGMENT/FINAL ORDER
This is a complaint U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The Complainant stated that the Complainant entered into an agreement for sale with developers on 12/08/2013 for purchasing a flat No. 5B having 700 sq. ft. of the 4th floor for a consideration of Rs. 14 lakhs for his residential purpose. The developer handed over possession and registered the deed of conveyance dated 24/06/2015 to the Complainant for a flat measuring 715 sq. ft. against Rs. 14,30,000/- contrary to the agreement dated 12/08/2013. The Complainant paid the consideration amount by taking loan from O.P. No. 1 and 2. The O.P. retained original deed of conveyance and the Complainant started to pay the EMI. The Complainant already paid Rs. 7,20,000/- through EMI and deposited when loan amount was Rs. 8 lakhs. The Complainant went to the bank to foreclose the loan account but the Opposite Parties did not show any interest and the Complainant came to know that the bank is not in a position to return original deed of conveyance and other documents under the custody of the bank. On 18/12/2020 the Opposite Party is informed that the said original documents were destroyed due to fire accident and they were unable to hand over the same. The Complainant stated that he is ready to foreclose the loan account and no question to repay the EMI per month if the ban k is not in a position to return the original documents. The Complainant sent letter dated 15/03/2021 and expressed willingness to foreclose the loan account but the O.P. did not come forward to hand over the original deed and also gave no reply to the letter dated 15/03/2021. The Complainant stated that the O.P.s are guilty of deficiency in service and there are findings of N.C.D.R.C. that such types of deficiency of service by the O.P. bank would be a cause of action for compensation. Hence, the Complainant filed this case praying
Contd. To Page No. 2 . . . ./
: : 2 : :
C.C. No. 218/2021
for direction to the O.Ps to hand over the original deed of conveyance and to issue a certificate that the title deed was destroyed by fire and also compensation for negligence and deficiency in service and also for causing harassment and mental agony and also to pay cost.
The Opposite Parties did not file any written version within the prescribed period of time and so the case was fixed ex-parte. Thereafter, the O.Ps appeared and prayed for an order for contesting the case and they were given opportunity to submit Brief Notes of Argument (BNA) but at the time of argument they did not submit any Brief Notes of Argument (BNA) and so the argument was heard ex-parte. After the argument the Opposite Parties submitted one written Brief Notes of Argument (BNA) but did not pay the cost awarded and therefore the Brief Notes of Argument (BNA) was not accepted.
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submitting Brief Notes of Argument (BNA) submitted that the Complainant’s deed of conveyance was retained by the O.P. bank and the Complainant went to bank to foreclose all the loan account. The bank did not take any interest and subsequently the O.Ps informed that the original documents were destroyed due to fire accident. He submitted that there was negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. bank for which the Complainant is suffering huge loss. He submitted that in such case of loss of documents from the custody of Opposite Party bank the Complainant is entitled to get huge compensation as per many decisions of the Apex Court and the Apex Commission. He also submitted that in case of such loss of original documents the valuation of the Complainant’s property diminished and the Opposite Parties are also liable to make F.I.R. and also give certified copy of the document with declaration that the original deed was lost from the custody of the Opposite Parties. He submitted that the bank did not do anything although the O.P. bank is liable to compensate for the loss and injury of the Complainant. He further submitted that in such case of loss of the original deed there is a chance that anybody who could find out the original document may misuse the same by mortgaging the property of the Complainant by depositing the title deed and in such case the Complainant should be compensated accordingly by the O.P. bank. He prayed for necessary relief as per prayers that were made in the complaint.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case it is found that admittedly the title-deed was lost due to fire accident from the custody of the O.Ps and therefore the O.Ps are liable for the loss of the deed. Accordingly the O.Ps must do all the needful so that the Complainant may not suffer any loss and injury for the loss of the deed. The O.Ps must ensure that information of the loss is reported at the P.S concerned with copy to the Complainant. The O.Ps must make a declaration to the Complainant that the deed was lost from their custody stating all the reasons for such loss and must hand over the Complainant a certified copy of the deed with official declaration of it’s loss. The O.Ps also must indemnify the Complainant for any loss of Complainant if any third party misuses the deed by mortgaging by deposit of the deed.
Contd. To Page No. 3 . . . ./
: : 3 : :
C.C. No. 218/2021
The O.Ps are also liable to pay compensation and cost. But the Complainant is also to foreclose the loan account by paying the admitted EMIs along with interest since the Complainant stated that out of Rs. 8 lakh loan amount of an amount of Rs. 7,20,000/- was paid by Complainant to O.P. bank.
In the result, the case succeeds.
Hence,
It is Ordered,
That the case C.C. 218/2021 be and the same is allowed ex-parte against the O.Ps.
The O.Ps are directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/-and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation cost to the Complainant subject to foreclosure of the loan account by the Complainant by paying admitted dues to the O.Ps within 02 (two) months for this date.
The O.Ps are also directed to make a report of the loss of the deed to the P.S. concerned and must make a declaration in writing that deed was lost from their custody with reasons of loss to the Complainant and also hand over certified copy of the deed with declaration of it’s loss from O.P’s custody and the O.P’s are also to ensure by an indemnity bond so that no third party can misuse the deed with mortgage by deposit of title deed as apprehended by the Complainant within 02 (two) months from this date failing which steps may be taken according to law.
Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.
Dictated & Corrected by me
President
President
Member
