Date of Filing: 15/12/2011
Date of Order: 30/01/2012
BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE - 20
Dated: 30th DAY OF JANUARY 2012
PRESENT
SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO,B.Sc.,B.L., PRESIDENT
SMT.NIVEDITHA .J, B.SC.,LLB., MEMBER
C.C. NO.2279 OF 2011
Sri.S.D.Devadas,
Aged About 82 years,
(Senior Citizen)
S/o. Late Sri. Dasappa,
R/at: No.102/73, 20th ‘A’ Main,
1st ‘R’ Block, Rajajinagar,
BANGALORE-560 010. …. Complainant.
V/s
(1) The Karnataka State Co-operative
Apex Bank Limited, (Scheduled Bank),
Having its registered office at “Uttunga”,
No.1, Pampamahakavi Road, Chamarajapet,
Bangalore-560 018.
Rep. by its Secretary.
(2) The General Manager,
The Karnataka State Co-operative Apex Bank
Limited, (Scheduled Bank),
Having its registered office at “Uttunga”,
No.1, Pampamahakavi Road, Chamarajapet,
Bangalore-560 018.
(3) The Karnataka State Co-operative Apex
Bank Limited, (Scheduled Bank),
Mahalakshmipuram Branch,
Bangalore-560 086.
Rep. by its Branch Manager. …. Opposite Parties.
BY SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRARAO, PRESIDENT
-: ORDER:-
The brief antecedents that led to the filing of the complainant U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking direction to the Opposite Parties to execute and register a declaration cum indemnity bond in favour of the complainant in respect of the Schedule-A property in the office of the concerned jurisdictional Sub-Registrar forthwith, to provide certified copies of the title deeds and documents from the concerned office where such deeds or documents have originated, to the complainant, to pay a sum of Rs.19,50,000/- as damages to the complainant so as to compensate for his acute mental agony, ordeal, pain, sufferings due to the misplacement of original title deeds by the opposite parties and the loss of actual worth of the Schedule-A property in the open market, to issue public notice, the draft of which must first be approved by the complainant, in Two leading regional News Paper, one in Kannada and other in English Language, are necessary:-
For the sake of getting liver transplantation surgery to his daughter, as advised by the opposite parties, the complainant deposited the title deeds of his property on 23.12.2008 with the opposite party and made the loan application on 26.02.2009. Thereafter the opposite parties went on postponing the event and said that the documents were misplaced and they will trace, but they have not done so. On the advise of the opposite parties the complainant got the gift deed in respect of the property in his wife’s name and submitted this gift deed dated: 01.04.2009 to the opposite parties which will be treated as the sufficient documents, but they have not sanctioned the loan. The complainant got amount from other source for operating of his daughter and requested the opposite parties several times to return the documents and issued notices several times. The opposite parties replied stating that they will return the documents soon after tracing it, but till today they have not done so. Hence the complaint.
2. In brief the version of the opposite parties are:-
The making of the loan application, deposit of title deeds, its misplacement are all admitted. The opposite parties never instructed the complainant to get the gift deed. The documents are misplaced, soon after its trace it will be delivered to the complainant. All the allegations to the contrary are denied.
3. To substantiate their respective cases, the parties have filed their respective affidavits and documents. The complainant had filed the written arguments. The arguments were heard.
4. The points that arise for our consideration are:-
:- POINTS:-
- Whether there is deficiency in service?
- What Order?
5. Our findings are:-
Point (A) & (B): As per the final Order
for the following:-
-:REASONS:-
Point A & B:-
6. Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavits and documents it is an admitted fact that the complainant is the owner of the property in question and he wanted to get the loan from the opposite parties hence he made a request to the opposite parties in this regard who wanted the original documents of his property to be handed-over to the opposite parties. Accordingly the complainant had delivered the title deeds of his property to the opposite parties as per the check list dated: 23.12.2008. Thereafter the opposite parties received application for loan. But subsequently the opposite parties neither sanctioned the loan nor returned the original documents. According to the complainant as per the advise of the opposite parties a gift deed has been executed in favour of his wife with respect to the property and submitted the gift deed dated: 01.04.2009, even then the opposite parties have not sanctioned the loan nor returned the documents. Anyway the documents are not returned to the complainant. The complainant has issued notices on several times to the opposite parties. Every time the opposite parties are stating that they will return the original documents but they have not done so. This is nothing but deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The opposite parties have stated that they have issued notice of theft in EE-Sanje the evening Kannada newspaper, which is not of any wide circulation. Even our Hon’ble High Court has clearly held publishing in an evening papers like EE-Sanje and Sanjevani cannot be taken in to account even for substituted service, only in the national papers such notices have to be published. Anyway since four years the documents have not been returned to the complainant. This is nothing but an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence if we pass the following order we think that will meet the ends of justice. Hence we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The opposite parties are directed to publish the loss of the documents given by the complainant and received by them on 23.12.2008 in any two National Daily News Papers one in Kannada and another one in English.
3. The opposite parties shall also lodge a police complaint in the jurisdictional police with respect to the loss/theft of the documents given to it on 23.12.2008 by the complainant.
4. The opposite parties shall deliver the certified copies of the nine documents received by it on 23.12.2008 to the complainant.
5. The opposite parties shall execute registered indemnity bond with respect to the property in question in case of any misuse of the documents by any fraudster causing loss to the complainant.
6. The opposite parties shall pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant.
7. The opposite parties shall also pay Rs.2,000/- as costs of this litigation to the complainant.
8. The opposite parties shall comply with the above said order as ordered at serial Nos.2 to 7 within 30 days from today and shall submit the compliance report with proof of documents within 45 days from today.
9. Return the extra sets to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.
10. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs, immediately.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 30th Day of January 2012)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
