DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.173/19
Deepak Gupta
S/o Shri Murari Lal Gupta
R/o C-1/Flat No.405
Milan Vihar Apartments
I.P. Extension
New Delhi-110092.
Ruchi Gupta
W/o Shri Deepak Gupta
R/o C-1/Flat No.405
Milan Vihar Apartments
I.P. Extension
New Delhi-110092. .…Complainant
VERSUS
The Chief Manager
Indian Overseas Bank
Shop No.98, Bangla Sahib Road
DIZ Staff Quarters
Gole Market Branch
New Delhi-110001. ….Opposite Party
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Present: Adv. Aditya Madam for complainant.
Present: Adv. Munish Chander Joshi for OP.
ORDER
Date of Institution:11.06.2019
Date of Order : 24.07.2024
President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava
Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking return of original sale deed dated 28.02.2008, in the alternative issuance of the certificate regarding loss or misplacement of original Sale Deed; Rs.10,00,000/- as damages due to deficiency in service, mental harassment etc. and Rs.50,000/- as litigation cost.
- It is stated by the complainant that OP i.e. Indian Overseas Bank granted a ‘Subhagruha Housing Loan’ for a sum of Rs.13,35,000/- vide sanction letter dated 12.02.2008. The loan facility was repayable into 240 EMIs of Rs.13,780/- and the loan was secured by the OP by way of equitable mortgage of residential flat situated at No.C-1/405, Fourth Floor, Milan Vihar Cooperative Group Housing Society, Indraprastha Extension, Patparganj, New Delhi-110092 (hereinafter referred to as property) valued at Rs.43.75 Lakhs as per approved valuer vide the valuation report dated 31.01.2008.
- As per the sanction letter dated 12.02.2008 Sale Deed was to be executed for Rs.18,00,000/- as per agreement to sale. The complainants executed and delivered sale deed dated 28.02.2008 for Rs.18,00,000/- in respect of the property mentioned above in consideration of aforesaid loan facility. Copy of sale deed is annexed as annexure C-3.
- It is further stated that complainant made timely payments and the loan amount was fully repaid by the complainants on 05.04.2015. Subsequent to the full repayment complainant No.1 sought the release of the title deed which was mortgaged with the OP however, the complainants were informed that OP is unable to trace the mortgage sale deed. After the inquiry request, OP issued a letter dated 26.06.2018 in which it was stated
‘….. the original title deed (original Conveyance Deed, Original sale deed and duplicate of original share certificate) along with documents were already handed over to the branch Manager through letter dated 05.05.2016….. Now we are unable to trace at our branch, we request you to kindly give us a week time to trace the same from our branch.’
Copy of the letter dated 26.06.2018 is annexed as annexure C-4.
- It is further stated that complainants have not received any information from the OP subsequent to their last letter dated 26.06.2018 and whenever the complainants approached the OP regarding the status of their title deeds, officials of the OP have ignored the complainants grievance on one pretext or the other.
- It is stated that in the absence of title documents, complainants will not be able to sell the flat and the complainants would suffer losses as prospective buyers would not agree to purchase the property without perusal of original title deed.
- It is further stated on account of negligence and deficiency of the service on the part of the OP complainants are facing continuous loss and anguish.
- In their reply, OP has stated that the complaint is liable to be dismissed as complainants have concealed material facts from the Commission or specify any cause of action in their favour. It is stated that OP’s approved valuer had prepared the valuation report of aforesaid mentioned property however, in 2019 the value is at its lowest and has declined to almost 50% so the property cannot be more than 20 to 22 lakhs.
- It is stated by the OP that after full repayment of the housing loan on 05.04.2015, OP asked the complainant to get the title deed released from the bank and when complainant No.2 alone approached the branch, he was advised by the Branch Manager to collect the title deed from the regional office as they were deposited with the Indian Overseas Bank, Retail Loan Processing Centre (RLPC). It is stated that complainant neither visited the branch nor the regional office till 2018.
- It is denied by the OP that they have issued letter dated 26.06.2018. It is further stated that the Branch Manager informed complainant No.1 that as RRC had closed w.e.f. 01.04.2016 all the title deed/property documents deposited with RLPC, Regional Office, Delhi were handed over to the respective branches of IOB. It is later admitted by the OP that a letter dated 26.06.2018 was issued by the OP wherein they were ready to provide the complainants with
- Certified copy of title deeds
- FIR for loss of documents in the concerned police station
- Publication of Public Notice in two newspapers about loss of title deeds
It is stated that complainant did not come to collect the documents.
- It is stated that OP has already offered the complainant and is ready to issue the certificate loss or misplacement of original sale deed dated 28.02.2008.
- In their rejoinder, complainants have mostly reiterated the averments made in the complaint. It was the responsibility of OP to properly and safely keep the title deeds of the above said property and OP has been reckless in its approach in misplacing the sale title deeds which constitutes grave deficiency on the part of the OP.
- It is further stated that by offering the alternate documents, OP cannot shy away from the fact that the original title deeds were grossly misplaced under their supervision and due compensation shall be awarded to the complainant for deficiency in the service of the OP.
- Both the complainants as well as the OP have filed their respective evidence affidavits. This Commission has gone through the entire material on record and have heard the oral arguments. Complainant has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble NCDRC in ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Khandelwal RP No.90/20 wherein on similar facts the revision petition of the Bank was dismissed with a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- and the order of District Commission allowing the complaint with a direction to the OP to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation was upheld. OP has placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bharat Amratlal Kothari Vs. Dosukhan Samadkhan Sindhi AIR 2010 SC 475, Akella Lalitha Vs. Konda Hanumantha Rao CA 6325-6326 of 2015, Trojan & Co. Ltd. Vs. Rm. N.N. Nagappa Chettiar AIR 1953 SC 235, M/s Rajasthan Art Emporium Vs. Kuwait Airways decided on 09.11.2023 wherein it was held
“Though the Court has very wide discretion in grating relief, the Court, however, cannot, ignoring and keeping aside the norms and principles governing grant of relief, grant a relief not even prayed for by the petitioner’.
This Commission has gone through the judgments and it is seen that the judgments quoted by OP are not applicable to the present case. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble NCDRC in Manoj Madhusudhnan vs ICICI Bank CC No. 129/17 decided on 31.08.2023 and in State Bank of India vs Amitesh Mazumder on 03.01.2020 wherein it was held
In my opinion, even if all the steps suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner are taken by the petitioner bank, that would not result in the complainant realizing the true market value of the immovable property in question, if he decides to sell the same in the market. No one in the market will agree to purchase an immovable property on payment of its prevailing market value, if he knows that the original Title Deed of the property will not be delivered to him by the seller. There will always be an apprehension of the misuse of the Title Deeds of the immovable property by an unscrupulous person, by depositing the same with a bonafide lender, since an Equitable Mortgage can be created by deposit of the Title Deeds. The erosion in the value of the property if it is to be sold without the Title Deeds, would be substantial and in fact even the compensation awarded by the District Forum and maintained by the State Commission may not be sufficient to make up such erosion in the market value of the property. Moreover, if the complainant decides to take a loan by deposit of the Title Deeds of the property against the property, he will not be able to get a ready lender in the market unless the Title Deeds of the property are deposited. In fact, even a bank may be unwilling to give a loan against an immovable property unless the Title Deeds of the property are deposited with it. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the fora below was eminently justified on account of the petitioner bank having lost the Title Deeds of the immovable property of the complainant. The view taken by the fora below does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The Revision Petition is therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.
This Commission observes that there is no denying that the OP has been negligent in its actions in not safe keeping the title deeds of the property of the complainants and therefore this Commission directs the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for the loss of title deeds of the complainant which were deposited by the complainants with the OP for creating equitable mortgage. This payment is to be within three months from the date of pronouncement of order failing which this amount shall carry an interest of 6% per annum till realization.
Copy of the order be given to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room. order be uploaded on the website.
