ORDER

BY SRI.H.R.SRINIVAS, PRESIDENT.

This is the Complaint filed by the Complainant U/S Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the Opposite Party (herein referred in short as O.P) alleging the deficiency in service in not keeping the documents given to OP by way of deposit of title deed properly, and thereby, causing deficiency in service and for directing OP to give five certified copies of the said deeds executed in his favour by one Paramashivam, direct to execute affidavit cum indemnity bond by OP to be sworn before the Judicial magistrate I Class, to provide him all the communication details in respect of the loss of the document, and also direct OP to provide him the certified copy of the Encumbrance Certificate, and to publish advertisement in leading English and vernacular daily paper regarding the fire accident that had taken place to the place where the documents was stored, and also to provide him the newspaper publication in five sets, to register the FIR in the police station regarding the accident, for providing Rs.15,00,000/- as penal interest on the OPs for causing fire accident wherein the documents had been destroyed and also Rs.5,00,000/- for recreation of the documents lost in the fire, for Rs.1,00,000/- as damages for causing mental agony, discomfort, detrimental to his interest and Rs.25,000/- towards cost and litigation expenses and for other reliefs as the Commission deems fit.

2.      The brief facts of the complaint are that;

The complainant purchased a house bearing No.17, situated at 10^th cross, II Main, Sri.Manjunathanagar, Kalkere, Ramamurthynagar, measuring 798 sq. feet. The same was financed by IDBI Bank Ltd., Indiranagar, Bangalore, OP in this complaint.  At the time of sanctioning of the loan, Manager of the OP informed him to deposit the original documents of the property in order to sanction the loan and all the original documents i.e., the original sale deed executed in his favour, the original Sale Deed of his vendor were deposited with the OP which collected the same from him.  OP has sanctioned Rs.19,00,000/- during December 2009 in order to purchase the said house property for which he deposited the original documents i.e.,

1. Original Sale Agreement favouring Shri Praveen Gopinathan dt 24.11.2009
2. Regd. Sale deed favouring Shri Praveen Gopinathan no 3636 dt 04.12.09
3. Regd sale deed favouring Shri Paramasivan no.4427 dt 11.02.08
4. Tax Receipts dt 07.10.2009
5. Receipts from BBMP dt 07.10.2009
6. Receipts No 841257 dt 07.10.2009
7. Payment receipt
8. EC
9. Tax paid receipts no 511120 dt 28.04.05
10. License for construction
11. Khata Extract dt 22.04.08
12. Khata Endorsement
13. Khata Certificate
14. Approved plan

3.      He was informed by an email on 12^th November 2019 by one Ashwathi Menon of IDBI Bank(OP), stating that the original documents deposited by him by mortgaging the property by deposit of title which was kept with stock holding corporation of India ltd., Bombay was destroyed in an accidental fire and the said information was given to him in a very casual manner and there was no iota of sign of anguish, or anxiety on the part of the bank.  Complainant was deeply pained about the same. Though the fire accident has taken place, where the documents had been destroyed in the year 2017, nearly after two years, the same was intimated to him by the bank.  There was no remorse or repentance on the part of the bank.  He had to issue a legal notice seeking compensation for the loss of the important and valuable documents.  No reply was issued by the OP and hence he had to issue a second notice.  All his efforts to get the document and the compensation become fruitless.  Further one Mr.Ashwathi Menon replied to the legal notice that they will only be getting certified copy and nothing can be expected from them.  The act of OP in being negligent regarding the documents amounts to deficiency in service. Having lost the original documents he will be put to irreparable and irreversible position as some of the destroyed documents like building approval plan, license for construction, payment receipt for registration and other documents relating to the property are impossible to be recreated.  In view of this, there is deficiency in service on the part of OP and prayed to allow the complaint.

4.      Upon the service of notice, OP appeared before the Commission and filed the version contending and demanding the complainant to strictly prove the allegations made. It has admitted having sanctioned Rs.18,50,000/- as loan and deposit the title deeds deposited with it.  It has admitted the factual aspects of loss of documents.  During initial stage of loan closure OP was not aware of loss of documents, due to the fire which caused due to vismajor occurred on December 11, 2017 in the safe vault of vendor site, m/s stock holding document management service limited, till the final report from SHCIL , it was not aware of the original documents are safe and in good condition. In the said fire accident, about 6000 documents are believed to be burnt.  After the final report, it came to know that the original documents of the complainant are safe with the banks authority.  Due to unforcen event which was beyond the control of the OP, the fire took place at site and nearly 6000 documents were destroyed in the said fire as intimated by SHCIL.   Complainant was fully aware of the fire accident.  The said fire accident was beyond its control and there was no negligence on its part.  All the original documents of the complainant are intact are safe and in good condition.  Hence the claim of the complainant cannot be accepted and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and hence prayed the Commission to dismiss the same.

5.      In order to prove the case, both the parties filed their affidavit evidence and produced documents. Arguments Heard. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2)        Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?

6.     Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT NO.1 AND 2:                In the Partly Affirmative

                                        For the following.

REASONS

7.     POINT No.1 AND 2:-

   Perused the complaint, version, affidavit evidence and the documents produced by respective parties.  During the pendency of the proceedings this Commission directed the OPs to produce the documents said to have been handed over to it by the complainant at the time of sanctioning and disbursing the loan. Even this Commission had directed the complainant to visit the branch and look into the documents.

        8.     In response to the directions by this Commission, OP has produced documents, wherein, it can be seen that only the blue print of the sanction plan has become feeble and nothing can be made out of the said document except the rubber stamps affixed by the concerned authorities.  The photocopy of the plan is also available and further the Encumbrance Certificate, the Khata Certificate, the endorsement ECs, the terms and conditions of issuing license to construct, the receipts for having paid the amount of taxes, registration fee, agreement to sell from one Paramashivam in favour of the complainant, the sale deed in that respect, payment schedule details and also the payment towards the khata and the absolute sale deed by the vendors of the complainant’s vendor, are forthcoming and the said documents are in a readable condition.  The same has not been mutilated except some ink marks.  Only the approved blue print plan as pointed above has been wholely unreadable to this extent there is deficiency in service. A certified copy of the said document can be obtained by making necessary application to the BBMP of the concerned ward.

        9.     Further the said approved plan is not a document of title, and the certified copy of it, or the original of it’s as the same value, which will not diminish the value of the property.  Under the circumstance, we cannot hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the bank  i.e., OP as, as per the procedure adopted by OP, they have to hand it over to the agency which looks after the storage of the documents of the clients of the bank.  It is the said agency responsible for keeping the documents safely.  Inspite of taking all precautionary measures ultimately one has to bow his head to the discrepancy act that is vismajor, In this case, at the first instance OP was under the impression that the entire documents have been destroyed. But a later date, on verification found that the documents produced by the complainant are intact and the same was informed to the complainant.

        10.   When such being the case, we cannot hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP in maintaining the documents of the complainant except for the blue print of the plan.  Hence we answer Point No. l and 2 partly in the affirmative.  However it is made clear hereby that OP to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant to obtain the certified copy of the approved plan and other documents in respect of his house by paying the fee in respect of the same.  Since the entire documents are available which are in good shape and a readable one without much problem, there will be no depreciation or diminution in the value of the property when it is to be sold. Hence we proceed to pass the following;

ORDER

1. Complaint is allowed in part.
2. Office is directed to call the OP to receive the original documents produced by it, to keep it in its custody till the loan is cleared by the complainant and after loan is cleared to hand over the same to the complainant or to his authorized person.
3. OP is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards the expenses to get the blue pint of the approved plan and other copies of the documents within 15 days after the loan is entirely cleared and the documents handed over to the complainant by OP.
4. OP is further directed comply the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and submit the compliance report to this forum within 15 days thereafter.
5. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

Note:You are hereby directed to take back the extra copies of the Complaints/version, documents and records filed by you within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the same will be weeded out/destroyed.

(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this 24^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022)

MEMBER                                PRESIDENT

ANNEXURES

1. Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

Ex P1: Copy of the mail correspondence made by me and bank

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

RW-1: Sri.Chakradhar Kumar Neti

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s

Ex R1: Documents given to us by the complainant at the time of obtaining the loan in the sealed cover.

MEMBER                                        PRESIDENT

HAV*