Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/20/2021

Karanvir Singh Sibia - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kotak Mahindra Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Rana Gurtej Singh & Raminder Singh Adv.

10 May 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	20 of 2021
Date of Institution	:	10.08.2021
Date of Decision	:	10.05.2022

 

1. Karanvir Singh Sibia, aged about 65 years, son of Sardar Gurbaksh Singh Sibia resident of House No.114, Sector 28-A, Chandigarh.
2. Karanvir Singh Sibia (HUF), through its Karta Sh. Karanvir Singh, Sibia, aged about 65 years, son of Sardar Gurbaksh Singh Sibia resident of House No.114, Sector 28-A, Chandigarh.
3. Gursimran Singh Sibia, aged about 43 years, son of Karanvir Singh Sibia resident of House No.114, Sector 28-A, Chandigarh.
4. Harpreet Kaur, aged about 61 years, wife of Karanvir Singh Sibia resident of House No.114, Sector 28-A, Chandigarh.

…..Complainants.

VERSUS

1. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, through its Managing Director, Head Office: 27 BKC, C 27, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400051.
2. Mr. Uday Kotak, Managing Director/CEO, Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, 27 BKC, C 27, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400051.
3. Chief Branch Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited (LAP Section), SCO No.153-154-155, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh, U.T., 160009.
4. Chief Branch Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited (LAP Section), SCO 831, NAC Manimajra, Chandigarh U.T.

....Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 47 read with Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019

 

 

BEFORE:   JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

 

PRESENT:

Sh. Rana Gurtej Singh, Advocate for the complainants.

Sh. Yogesh Jain, Advocate for the opposite parties.   

 

RAJESH  K. ARYA, MEMBER 

                   The complainants have filed this complainant for deficiency in rendering service on the part of the opposite parties alleging that the opposite parties failed to supply copies of original documents            which were deposited while taking home loan from them. Undisputedly, property i.e. House No.114, Sector 28-A, Chandigarh was initially allotted to Smt. Surinderjit Kaur, mother of complainant No.4 (Harpreet Kaur) and on the basis of unregistered will, the rights in the said property were transferred in favour of complainant No.4 vide letter dated 23.07.1998 by the Estate Officer, Chandigarh. The complainants, as family members, obtained home loan of Rs.4,95,00,000/- from the opposite parties vide sanction letter dated 29.01.2017, Annexure C-1, against the said property i.e. House No.114, Sector 28-A, Chandigarh and deposited originals of documents i.e. Lease Deed dated 22.05.2007 in favour of complainant No.4 (Mrs. Harpreet Kaur wife of complainant No.1 – Sh. Karanvir Singh Sibia); Transfer Letter dated 23.07.1998 also in the name of Mrs. Harpreet Kaur and Allotment Letter in favour of Smt. Surinder Kaur.  The complainants requested the Bank to supply copies of the original documents, vide emails dated 06.04.2017, 03.05.2017 and 04.05.2017, Annexure C-2. The opposite parties on 04.05.2017, issued confirmation letter dated 04.05.2017, Annexure C-3, as regards receipt of the aforesaid original documents. The complainants sought information qua leftover loan amount for foreclosure vide letter dated 16.11.2020, Annexure C-4, which the opposite parties intimated vide their letter dated 15.01.2021, Annexure C-6, as Rs.1,72,82,388.70p. The complainants paid the said amount through RTGS, vide receipt, Annexure C-8 (colly) and sought return of post-dated cheques vide letter dated 18.01.2021, Annexure C-9. Further as per letter dated 18.01.2021, Annexure P-10, the loan account stood terminated on 15.01.2021. The opposite parties vide email dated 10.02.2011, Annexure P-11, asked the complainants to collect No Objection Certificate and original property documents from their Branch but to utter shock, the opposite parties informed that the documents have been misplaced. The complainants immediately wrote letter dated 15.02.2021, Annexure C-12, to provide original documents followed by a formal request, Annexure C-13 and a reminder dated 24.02.2021, Annexure C-14 but of no avail. Lastly, the complainants served legal notice dated 22.03.2021, Annexure C-15, through Counsel upon the opposite parties but again the position remained the same as the opposite parties failed to trace out the original documents. Hence, this complaint seeking direction to the opposite parties to issue ‘No Dues Certificate’, Certified Final Interest Certificate of Loan Account from 29.01.2017 to 15.01.2021; return all original documents or in alternative, to pay the market price of the property; pay compensation of Rs.20 Lakhs for deficiency in service; pay Rs.4 Lakhs towards mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainants and pay litigation charges of Rs.75,000/-.

2.                On the other hand, the opposite parties in their reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case as regards obtaining property loan by the complainants; tendering original documents, as alleged; and closing of the Loan Account, have stated that as regards the transfer letter dated 23.07.1998, the same is not available on records of the Bank primarily for the reason that the document of title for the purpose of creating security was the lease deed. However, the opposite parties have further stated that they found that an endorsement has been given by the then Relationship Manager having received the transfer letter dated 23.07.1998. It has further been stated that since the then Relationship Manager has left the service, as such, the opposite parties are not in a position to confirm the receipt of the same. It has further been stated that despite best efforts put in by the officials of the opposite parties Bank, the said document could not be traced and accordingly, opposite parties through email dated 12.04.2021, Annexure R-1, expressed its regrets and tendered apology with further request to the complainants to collect the original property documents and to assist the opposite parties in getting the duplicate letter of transfer from Estate Officer for which, their signatures were very much essential but they flatly refused to cooperative with the opposite parties Bank. Pleading no deficiency in rendering service on their part, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                We have heard the Counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record and the written arguments of the parties very carefully.

4.                The only question to be determined by this Commission is as to whether there is any deficiency in rendering service on the part of the opposite parties Bank in not returning the complete original documents especially transfer letter dated 23.07.1998, vide which, the rights in the said property were transferred in favour of complainant No.4 by the Estate Officer, Chandigarh; or not, which they tendered at the time of obtaining home loan from the opposite parties Bank?

5.                It is apt to mention here that it is case of per se negligence on the part of the opposite parties Bank where the Bank has misplaced the original transfer letter dated 23.07.1998. It may be stated here that Annexure C-3 is the main document to prove the case of the complainants vide which the opposite parties Bank confirmed the receipt of the three property documents to have been received. The contents of said letter dated 04.05.2017, being relevant, reads thus:-

“Sub: Confirmation of original documents under loan   a/c    LAP-17685020.

 

Dear Sir,

We refer the above loan sanctioned to you against. H.No.114P, Sec 28A, Chandigarh and also confirm we have received the following property papers.

1. Lease deed dated 22/05/2007 in favour of Smt. Harpreet Kaur.
2. Transfer letter dated 23/07/1998 in favour of Smt. Harpreet Kaur.
3. Allotment letter in favour of Smt. Surinderjit Kaur.

 

        Sd/-

Yours Faithfully

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.,

Manimajra Branch, Chandigarh.

 

Thus, it is proved beyond any doubt that the opposite parties Bank had received the aforesaid original documents and their plea that transfer letter dated 23.07.1998 is not available on their records primarily for the reason that the document of title for the purpose of creating security was the lease deed, is an afterthought and stands rejected. Moreover, The opposite parties have admitted in their reply that in their records, they found an endorsement given by the then Relationship Manager having received the transfer letter dated 23.07.1998. When the opposite parties Bank could not trace the original documents, they vide their email dated 12.04.2021, Annexure R-1, expressed its regrets and tendered apology to the complainants.

6.                It may also been stated here that during the pendency of the complaint, on 08.11.2021, one Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Senior Manager of the opposite parties Bank appeared before this Commission and produced original documents pertaining to the case i.e. Lease Deed dated 22.05.2007 alongwith its certified true copy, allotment letter dated 05.08.1974, photocopy of the Death Certificate of Smt. Surinder Kaur showing her date of death as 13.08.1994 and No Due Certificate. After retaining Photostat copies of the said documents, the originals were returned to Sh. Sandeep Kumar. However, direction was issued to the opposite parties to place on record the attested copies thereof, which they placed on record on 25.01.2022 by moving appropriate application. On previous date i.e. 08.11.2021, Counsel for the opposite parties stated that the transfer document in the name of beneficiary i.e. Harpreet Kaur is not available and the complainants may obtain the attested/duplicate copy thereof from the office of the Estate Officer, U.T., Chandigarh. It may be stated here that when the original transfer letter dated 23.07.1998 has been misplaced from the custody of the opposite parties Bank then, why the complainants be made to run from pillar to post in procuring its certified or attested copy. Prime duty casts upon the opposite parties Bank to get it arranged from the concerned authorities and deliver it to the complainants. One can very well imagine the plight of a borrower that after Home Loan closure, the most shocking news for any borrower is that one of his original property documents lost by Bank. At times, such a negligent act has been deferred by the Bank and they do not accept its responsibility and liability with respect to the same. In these circumstances, the distressed customer is left vulnerable and defenceless. Bank must not get away with such an irresponsible and negligent act. Thus, in the instant case, the act of deficiency in rendering service on the part of the opposite parties Bank is proved as they misplaced the original Transfer Letter dated 23.07.1998 and failed to trace out the same till the filing of the present complaint or during its pendency.

7.                In support of their contention, the complainants have cited judgment of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled ‘Sheel Sohal and Another Versus Axis Bank Limited’, Consumer Case No.1021 of 2016, decided on 08.01.2018, wherein under similar circumstances, for loss of original title documents by the Bank, the Hon’ble National Commission directed the opposite parties therein, to pay a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs as compensation for loss caused to the complainants by losing/misplacing the original title documents of the flat. Further, the complainants cited the case of ‘LIC Housing Finance Co. Ltd. Versus Rajeev Kumar Jain’, First Appeal No.624 of 2012 decided on 08.12.2016, wherein, the Hon’ble National Commission awarded compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant for loss of the sale deed besides Rs.20,000/- as litigation costs. In another judgment titled ‘Branch Manager, State Bank of India and others Versus Varanasi Bala Tripura Sundari’, 2018(1) CLT 474, the Hon’ble National Commission, while dismissing the appeal, held that loss is bound to be substantial considering the value of immovable properties in the country and negligence of Bank officials provided who lost the original title documents of the complainant therein. Further in ‘Bank of India Versus Mustafa Ibrahim Nadiadwala’, 2017 (1) CPJ 180, the Hon’ble National Commission, while partly allowing the appeal, directed the Bank to pay compensation of Rs.5 Lakhs for loss of the title deeds besides Rs.10,000/- as litigation costs. In case titled ‘Secretary/Manager, Mayyanad Regional Co-operative Bank Versus Ebrahimkutty’, First Appeal No.288 of 2014 decided on 20.02.2017, the Hon’ble National Commission, in view of its earlier judicial precedents in the cases of ‘Bank of India Versus Mustafa Ibrahim Nadidwala’ (supra) and ‘LIC Housing Finance Co. Ltd. Versus Rajeev Kumar Jain’ (supra), while upholding the deficiency on the part of the Bank in misplacing the original title deed, reduced the compensation from Rs.10 Lakhs to Rs.5 Lakhs besides awarding Rs.10,000/- as litigation costs. However, in the instant case, only one document i.e. original of Transfer Letter dated 23.07.1998 has been misplaced by the opposite party – Bank and the remaining original documents are still available with it (Bank), for which, in our considered view, compensation in the sum of Rs.3 Lakhs, if granted, to the complainants, would meet the ends of justice.

8.                Thus, in view of the aforesaid case laws and deficiency in rendering service proved on record on the part of the opposite parties Bank, we are of the concerted view that the complaint is liable to be partly allowed.

9.                For the reasons recorded above, this consumer complaint is partly allowed with costs and the opposite parties, jointly and severally, are directed as under:-

1. To return the original documents i.e. Lease Deed dated 22.05.2007 in favour of Smt. Harpreet Kaur, Allotment Letter dated 05.08.1974 to the complainants.
2. To get procured the certified/attested copy of the Transfer Letter dated 23.07.1998 in favour of Smt. Harpreet Kaur, to the complainants from the Estate Office, Chandigarh. However, it is made clear that in case, signatures of the complainants are required, for this purpose, the complainants shall extend their cooperation to the opposite parties Bank for signing an appropriate application in this regards.
3. To provide ‘No Objection Certificate’ to the complainants as the Loan Account already stood closed.
4. To pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh only) to the complainants for the loss of original Transfer Letter dated 23.07.1998 in favour of Smt. Harpreet Kaur and deficiency in rendering service.
5. To pay a sum of Rs.33,000/- to the complainants as litigation costs.

10.              This order be complied with by the opposite parties Bank within a period of 45 days from the date of its receipt of certified copy, failing which, the amounts of compensation of Rs.3 Lakhs and litigation costs of Rs.33,000/-, mentioned at clauses (iv) & (v) above, shall carry penal interest @9% per annum from the date of passing of this order till actual payment.

11.              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

12.           File be consigned to Record Room after completion.

Pronounced

10.05.2022.

[RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

(PADMA PANDEY)

MEMBER

 

 

 

 

(RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

Ad