Per Hon’ble Mr.Narendra Kawde, Member
This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 31/05/2012 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune in consumer complaint no.262/2010, Captain Vikrant Ajay Apandkar v/s. IDBI Bank Ltd.
2. The present appellant/original complainant preferred this appeal against the impugned order dated 31/05/2012 on the ground that the District Forum did not appreciate that the housing loan availed by the appellant was for certain tenure. Unless and until the entire loan was repaid and ‘No Dues Certificate’ was issued by the respondent/opponent bank, there was no question of returning/demanding ‘original Sale Deed’ deposited with the respondent bank while availing the loan. The important issue has been ignored deciding the complaint and passing the impugned order.
3. Admitted facts are that the appellant availed housing loan advanced by the Respondent Bank. Registered loan agreement executed by the parties is on record. It was a tenure loan, which was finally foreclosed in the year 2007 and Respondent Bank has issued ‘No Dues Certificate’ on 30/06/2007. Complainant/appellant was communicated that the original sale deed was reportedly lost while issuing NOC. In the year 2003 after submission as documentary evidence for availing loan from the Respondent Bank, repeated and continuous correspondence through power of attorney and also by the complainant, were made for obtaining original sale deed. The communication was exchanged between the parties and the Respondent Bank conveyed that they were making extensive search to trace the original sale deed along with the document. Reply given to the complainant’s by each and every letter is available on record. Only after foreclosure of the loan, bank come out with a plea that on verification of the bank’s record it was found that the original title deed/agreement was never submitted to the bank. This letter issued from the bank is dated 09/04/2009. All earlier communications exchanged by the bank revealed that the bank had been trying to search missing original document and same would be handed over to the complainant /appellant as soon as found at their end. Aggrieved by last communication referred to herein above complainant /appellant has filed the consumer complaint before the District Forum, Pune claiming relief of compensation of `5,00,000/-.
4. The consumer complaint was dismissed by the District Forum basically on the point of limitation observing that the first cause of action occurred in the year 2003, as the complainant was within the knowledge that the original document had been lost, whereas consumer complaint was filed in the year 2010 and, that too, without any delay condonation application.
5. Ld. Advocate of the appellant advanced the arguments that cause of action is a bundle of facts and, lastly, it is accrued on 09/04/2009 since first time the Respondent Bank took the total contradictory stand communicating to the complainant stating that the original title deed was never submitted while availing the loan and, therefore, the stand of the Respondent Bank amounts to volte-face. The cause of action has to be computed from this date of 09/04/2009, though the complainant was aware of the loss of original document as pleaded by the Respondent Bank in the year 2003. Ld. Advocate also drawn our attention to the various communications earlier to the last letter about the request for returning the original document. Every time the Bank’s contention was that all efforts were made to trace the original document and as soon as traced will be returned to the complainant. ‘No dues certificate’ issued by the respondent bank on 30/06/2007 gives details of documents returned to the complainant which includes payment receipts, certified flat agreement, approved plan, post dated cheques and permission of the bank to mortgage. This letter does not speak of returning original agreement. The complainant immediately thereafter took up the matter in writing seeking return of the original document. However, Respondent Bank could not locate though assured by various communications to the appellant/ complainant.
6. Ld. Advocate for the Appellant relied on Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgement in the case of M/s.Transport Corporation of India Ltd. V/s. M/s.Veljan Hydrair Ltd. in Appeal (civil) 3096 of 2005 decided on 22/02/2007.
7. Para 12 according to appellant of the said judgement is relevant in the case on hand. It was observed in the judgement by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that, “ ………the limitation for an action would not start to run until there was a communication from the appellant either informing about the loss or expressing its inability to deliver or refusal to deliver, or until the respondent makes a demand for delivery or payment of value of the consignment after waiting for a reasonable period and there is non compliance. Therefore, complaint is not barred under section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.”
8. Ld. Advocate of the Respondent Bank opposed the submission of the appellant on the ground that it was within the knowledge of the appellant the loss of original document in the year 2003 itself but it is not the case of the respondent bank that they have not made any efforts to trace the original document. There is no satisfactory explanation coming forward from the respondent bank about the stand changed in their stand of non-submission of original document as against the earlier stand of locating the original documents by making best possible efforts.
9. In our opinion, the arguments advance by the Ld. Advocate of the appellant are sustainable since final cause of action occurred in favour of the appellant only on 09/04/2009 i.e. final intimation from the Bank stating about non-submission of original documents while availing loan. Stand taken by the bank is unreasonable and beyond the imagination as no Bank can advance loan without going through the original documents and taking the custody of such documents. We are of the opinion that the cause of action advanced by the appellant/ complainant is covered under the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case relied upon by the complainant. District Forum has certainly erred holding that the consumer complaint was barred by limitation. Bank did not locate the original document and, thereafter, correspondence continued between the parties and Bank came out with a new theory for non submission of original title deed by their letter dated 09/04/2009. Complaint was filed on 19/06/2010, which was well within the period of two years as required under section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. District Forum ought to have considered all these aspects before rejecting the consumer complaint on the point of limitation. Therefore, impugned order passed by the District Forum deserves to be set aside by allowing the consumer complaint.
10. Complainant prayed for relief of `5 lakhs against the respondent bank. However, to quantify the claim there is no documentary evidence whatsoever led by the complainant. However, the complainant has been continuously making efforts to obtain the original documents and, finally, the bank disowned their earlier stand in locating and dispatching the original document to the complainant for quite long time. Complainant is subjected to unnecessary correspondence and follow up since he has availed the loan in the year 2003. Though there is no quantification of the compensation, yet we find it appropriate that complainant deserves to be compensated to some extent on account of long drawn follow up with the respondent bank. We, therefore, award compensation of `2,00,000/- and also costs of the litigation of `50,000/-.
11. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:-
ORDER
1. Appeal is allowed.
2. Consumer complaint is partly allowed.
3. Respondent Bank/IDBI Bank is hereby directed to pay compensation of `2 lakhs along with interest @ 9% p.a. effective from 09/04/2009.
4. Respondent Bank/IDBI Bank is hereby directed to bear their own costs and pay costs of `50,000/- to the complainant.
5. All these amounts shall be paid within a period of 60 days from receipt of this order, failing which, 6% penal interest on the amounts ordered will have to be paid till realization.
Pronounced on 11th September, 2013.
