BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION.
KAMRUP
C.C.No. 23/2013
Present: I) Shri A.F.A.Bora, M.Sc.,L.L.B.,A.J.S(Rtd.)-President
II) Smti Archana Deka Lahkar,B.Sc.,L.L.B. -Member
III) Shri Tutumoni Deva Goswami, B.A.L.L.B.- Member
Dr.Promatha Sarkar Raja - Complainant
-vs-
1) LIC Housing Finance Limited -Opposite parties
JeevanPrakash, Ground Floor
S.S.Road, Fancy Bazar,
Guwahati- 781001 (Assam).
2) LIC Housing Finance Ltd.
Bombay Life Building (2nd Floor)
45/47 Veer Nariman Road
Fort, Mumbai-400001 (Maharastra)
3) Chairman, LIC of India
Yogakhema, Jeevan Beema Marg, Mumbai-400004
-AND-
IN THE MATTER OF
1)Mrs.Pratibha Raja
W/o Late Dr.Promatha Sarkar Raja
2) Ms Snigdha Das
D/o Late Dr.Promatha Sarkar Raja
3) Ms.Bidisha Das
D/o Late Dr.Promatha Sarkar Raja
All residents of House No. 26, Subarna Path of Rup Konwar Path, Natun Chachal , VIP Road, Guwahati-781022.
-vs-
1) LIC Housing Finance Limited -Opposite parties
JeevanPrakash, Ground Floor
S.S.Road, Fancy Bazar,
Guwahati- 781001 (Assam).
2) LIC Housing Finance Ltd.
Bombay Life Building (2nd Floor)
45/47 Veer Nariman Road
Fort, Mumbai-400001 (Maharastra)
3) Chairman, LIC of India
Yogakhema, Jeevan Beema Marg, Mumbai-400004
Appearance :
For the complainant Ms.Pallabi Talukdar learned advocate
For the opp.party Sri P.P.Saikia, Sri Kamal Kalita learned advocate
Date of filing written argument by the complainant :- 27.1.22
Date of oral argument :- 11.3.22
Date of judgment: - 11.4.22
JUDGMENT
Case of thecomplainant
1) The case of the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 in which complainant Dr.Promatha Sarkar Raja alleges that he had obtained a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- (Five lakhs) only from HUDCO, for construction of a house in a plot of land in DAG NO. 277, Patta No. 161, Hengrabari , Guwahati, vide their letter No. HUDCO/ZONE RF/2005/4748 dtd. 16.2.2005. The complainant after observing the conditions of the loan offered by the opp.party (LIC Housing Finance Ltd, a subsidiary of Life Insurance Corporation of India), applied for a loan and accordingly the Housing Finance Ltd. offered the loan Rs. 4,50,000/- and was accepted by the complainant on 11.3.2005. Accordingly, HUDCO on receiving the outstanding amount of loan from LIC Housing transferred the security documents of the complainant to the Housing finance Ltd., Fancy bazaar Guwahati on 17.5.2005.
The following are the security documents submitted by the complainant .
I) Deed of Sale Deed No. 4599 dtd. 21.8.1998, with lodgment receipt.
II) Mutation certificate dtd. 22.1.2002 from Asstt. Settlement Officer, Guwahati.
III) Non-encumbrance certificate dtd. 3.12.2001 with miscellaneous receipt and affidavit
IV) Revenue receipt dtd. 19.12.2001
V) Trace map (photostate)
VI) Re assigned LIC policies bearing nos:-
- S-480394377 of Rs. 50,000/-
- 480138329 of Rs. 1,00,000/-
- 480402417 of Rs. 70,000/-
2) Accordingly, the LIC Housing Finance on 6.4.2005 disbursed an amount of Rs.4,15,000/- as a loan to the complainant. The matter continued and thereafter on 22.4.2009 the complainant was asked by opp.party No.1 to send photo copy of all documents earlier sent by HUDCO as those were found to have been mis-placed in their office and accordingly this documents were sent to the op.party no. 1 by the complainant vide letter 29.4.2009. Thereafter, on 20.11.2012 complainant liquidated the outstanding Housing loan amounting of Rs.1,88,277/- and was duly received by op.party No.1 . However, the security documents were not released on that day. Subsequently complainant sought for the release of the documents by a letter dtd. 29.11.2012 as these were vital documents.
3) For non-receipt of those documents on 9.1.2013, complainant served a legal notice upon the opp.party . During that period the complainant was a cardiac patient and had undergone operation of Coarctation of Aorta and having LV dysfunction and on 8.2.13 the counsel of the complainant was informed that documents were found and claim of the complainant will be settled within 15 days. Thereafter the Area Manager , Sri Ashish Kumar, refused to attend the call from the complainant and his counsel ultimately 27.2.13 some message were sent on different dates and last message was sent on 27.2.2013.
4) It is alleged that opp.party neither settling the claim and nor returning the vital documents which were deposited by the complainant as a security documents have caused harassment to the complainant and being a cardiac patient could not afford to run around various offices for documents, which are of permanent nature, and vital for immovable properties. Further, no F.I.R. or any intimation to the originators has been filed by the opp.parties . It is however found from the receipt dtd. 20.11.2012 (Annex.6) which has been even charged an amount of Rs.1,123.60/- for documents retrieval to the complainant.
5)It is further alleged that non-settlement of the claim has caused unduestress , harassment , physical ailment as well as affecting the mental health to the complainant .
6)During the pendency of this proceeding complainant expired on 13.1.2018 and a substitute petition was filed on 2.2.2018 along with death certificate. Now the present petitioners arethe wife anddaughters of the original applicant . NOK certificate was not issued immediately by the authorities, although it was supposed to be available within a period of 90 days from the date of death. The petition was pending before the forumAfter receipt of the NOK certificate the Forum allowed the petitioner to file a regular substitution petition by the legal heirsof the deceased. Under the above circumstances , the present complaint petition is filed with the prayer as stated below:-
a)The opp.party No. 1 to return the original security documents. If not possible , then arrange to produce valid copies of the said documents, from various originating offices.
b)The cost of the mental agony and physical sufferings of the complainant and frequent visits to the office of the opp.party No.1 is assessed at Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh) .be paid by the opp.partiesto the complainant .
c)Thereafter , settle the claim of the complainant accordingly.
d)Rs.10,000/- be paidby the op.partiesto the complainant , as cost legal proceedings.
e)Further , any otherrelief the complainant is entitled to be granted.
7)The case is contestedby the opp.party No. 1,2 & 3 L.I.C.Housing Finance Ltd and others by filing written statement alleginginter-alia that they did not keep the security documents with them, but sent it to their back officesituated at Siliguri , West Bengal, as recently the Siliguri office has been merged with KolkataHead Quarter for administrative reason . Hence, all the security documents has been sent to Kolkata and during the transit of those documents, some where it is mis-placed and could not be traced out, hence thedelay. The furthercontention made by the op.partyis thatmissing any set of documentsneed sufficient time to trace out as op.partycatering the need of entire North Eastern Region. The op.party simplyblame the complainant for institutingthe case against them. The opp.party claim themselves as an organization and custodian of public money and claim that payment of any compensationto the complainant for no faultwould hamper the growth of the institution. The opp.party further made a declarationthat they are trying to redress the grievances of the complainantand would provide the complainant with the certified copies of the documents,if theyfailed to trace out those documents despite of all efforts.
8)Having heard the partiesand after going through the pleadings , it appears to us that dispute need to be resolved by determining the following issues.
Points for decision-
- Whether opp.parties are found negligent and there is deficiency in service towards the complainant ?
- Whether complainant is entitled for compensation as claimed along with the direction for providing the valid copies of those documents which were in custody of the opp.parties ?
Reasons for decision-
9) We have heard both the parties as well as purused documents available on record. It is un-disputed that a loan was obtained by the complainant duly liquidated the same. There is no dispute about sanction of the loan by the opp.party to the complainant . In the present proceeding both the issues mentioned here-in-above are analogues. We have taken both the issues together for decision and discussion.
10) We have carefully perused the documents termed as Ext.1 and also the loan offer proved vide Ext.2. Ext.3 is the documents which is issued by L.I.C.Housing Finance Ltd. with their terms and conditions and as per aforesaid documents the beneficiary need to submit the original title deed of the property along with other documents. Ext.4 is another letter which proved the fact that loan was sanctioned in favour of the complainant and the complainant have admittedly surrendered original security documents including L.I.C.policies . Ext. 5 is the proof of the facts that the original documents are lost during transit .The complainant made a request to send the documents in his address.
11) It is undisputed that security documents of the complainant are not returned back after closure of the loan by the opp.party to the complainant . The original complainant have submitted his evidence in affidavit narrating the entire facts , and he was duly cross examined by the opp.party and we have found that no contradictory view is established to hold that the documents mentioned in the complaint petition are not submitted to the opp.party. If documents are submitted to HUDCO then receipt of those documents by L.I.C.Housing Finance Ltd. is presumed safely, and there is no specific denial of receipt of those documents by the opp.parties .
12) From the evidence of O.P.W. 1 Sri Sumant Kr.Pangrahi it appears that they requested the complainant to take back the certified copies of the documents from their office, but complainant refused to take, but he does not know whether there is any written request to the complainant or not . The O.P.W. 1 further submitted that within 2 months they will deliver government certified copies of those documents after procuring the same from the government office.
13) In the prevailing circumstances it appears to us that during pendency of the case the original complainant died and his name was substituted by his wife and daughters. The loss of a precious documents by the opp.party cannot be taken so lightly with a word saying that during transit of heap of documents some paper may be lost. A person’s property and his original documents earned during his lifetime is so precious that they want to keep those papers with utmost care. But opp.party for the purpose of granting the loan, if not capable of keeping those in their safe custody ought have acted upon certified copies and should not deprive the owner of the documents from the custody of the original papers only for the interest of the company . The loan was granted and it was duly re-paid by the complainant, hence it is the responsibility of the opp.party to return back the original documents taken by them at the time of sanctioning the loan.
14) The act of the op.party is found to be negligent in dealing with the matter casually for which an old person with some ailment had to run from door to door for getting copies of those documents etc. The deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties are apparently there and for that they are liable for compensation .
15) In the result it is held that the opp.parties are jointly and severally liable for deficiency in service and they need to pay a compensation of Rs.90,000/- along with cost of the proceeding amounting to Rs.10,000/-. The opp.parties are further directed to collect the documents from the government office concerned with due certification for the loss of the documents as mentioned in the complaint petition as follows,
I) Deed of Sale Deed No. 4599 dtd. 21.8.1998, with lodgment receipt.
II) Mutation certificate dtd. 22.1.2002 from Asstt. Settlement Officer, Guwahati.
III) Non-encumbrance certificate dtd. 3.12.2001 with miscellaneous receipt and affidavit
IV) Revenue receipt dtd. 19.12.2001
V) Trace map (photostate)
VI) Re assigned LIC policies bearing nos:-
- S-480394377 of Rs. 50,000/-
- 480138329 of Rs. 1,00,000/-
- 480402417 of Rs. 70,000/- including 3 nos of L.I.C. policies and to hand over the same to the complainant within 2 months.
16) With the above direction the case is decreed in favour of the complainant with a direction to pay the decreetal amount within 45 days from the date judgment , failing which the opp.parties have to pay an interest @ 12% per annum from the date of judgment till realization.
Judgment is written in separate sheets and kept with record.
Given under our hand and seal of the District Commission, Kamrup, this the 11th day of April /2022.
( Shri A.F.A.Bora )
President
DCDRC,Kamrup
( Smti Archana Deka Lahkar )
Member
DCDRC,Kamrup
( Shri Tutumoni Deva Goswami )
Member
DCDRC,Kamrup
Dictated and corrected by me
( Shri A.F.A.Bora )
President,
District Consumer Commission, Kamrup.
Typed by me
( Smt Juna Borah )
Stenographer, District Consumer Commission, Kamrup.
