BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 01/11/2010

Date of Order : 31/01/2012

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 580/2010

Between

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. Shortly stated, the case of the complainant is as follows :-

The complainant availed himself of three loans from the opposite party by pledging the title deeds of 3 different properties. The said loans were closed and the opposite party had issued No Dues Certificates dated 30-06-2010. But the sale deed No. 2302/1983 of Muvattupuzha SRO with respect to 1.02 Acres of land comprised in Sy. No. 23/1A and 23 1/B of Arakuzha Village, Sale Deed No. 5800/2000 of Muvattupuzha SRO with respect to 52 cents of land comprised in Sy. No. 23/2A, and 23/2B of Arakuzha village and settlement deed No. 2566/2001 with respect to 13.37 Acres of land comprised in Sy. No. 600/5B of Irapuram Village and prior title deeds were not released, even after the closure of the loans and repeated requests. The above said title deeds and prior deeds submitted before the opposite parties are essential for procuring fresh loans and also for selling the property. In order to over come the said difficulty creation of fresh deeds are highly necessary. Altogether, an amount of Rs. 2,84,800/- needed towards stamp duty and registration fee Rs. 10,000/- needed for the incidental expenses for the execution of the fresh documents. Due to the loss of the title deeds, the complainant has been put to irreparable hardships, mental agony and financial loss. So, the complainant is entitled for Rs. 1,00,000/-. The complainant is entitled for a total sum of Rs. 3,94,800/- from the opposite parties along with interest from the date of complaint till realisation. This complaint hence.

2. The version of the opposite parties :

The complainant had availed three separate loans for the purchase of digital equipments for his photo shop. The said loans were disbursed on hypothecation of the equipments which is the secured asset of the bank. Apart from the credit facility application including the terms and conditions, the complainant had also executed an irrecoverable power of attorney and unattested deed of hypothecation in respect of the equipments. The complainant had also caused to arrange one Mr. Sisupalan and Sivaraman as guarantors for the credit facility availed. Thus, it can be revealed that sufficient securities were furnished to the bank so as to avail the credit facility for purchasing the equipment and hence no title deeds were deposited. As per the internal norms of practice of the bank, the deposit of title deed is secured only on home loan by way of equitable mortgage. Without prejudice to the averments mentioned above, this opposite party eventhough had not received any title documents of the complainant and also is not in possession of the same, as a service gesture and good conscience is willing to recreate the alleged title documents by way of obtaining certified copies of the documents from the concerned registrar's office and do the necessary formalities on getting the co-operation of the complaint, if this Forum permits to do so.

3. The complainant and his witnesses were examined as PW's 1 to 3 and Exts. A1 to A4 were marked on his side. The witness for the opposite parties was examined as DW1. Ext. B1 was marked on their side. The opposite parties filed argument note. Heard the counsel for the parties.

4. The points that emanated for consideration are :-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get a total sum of Rs. 2,94,800/- being the cost to retrieve the documents?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get a compensation of Rs. One lakh from the opposite parties?

5. Point Nos. i. and ii. :- According to the complainant, the opposite parties failed to return the title deeds of the property of surety which had been deposited with the 1^st opposite party at the time of avail of the 3 loans. It is contended that the loss of the vital documents from the possession of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and so the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation and the amounts to retrieve the above documents. However, the opposite parties maintain that they secure title deeds only on house loan by way of equitable mortgage. The same had been done uncontrovertedly by them. However, for no reason stated it is stated these records are not in their hands and they have not accepted the title deeds of the complainant.

6. Ext. A2 is the legal reports issued by PW3 the legal advisor to the opposite parties. In Ext. A2, PW3 has categorically directed the opposite parties to collect the originals of the sale deeds in question from the complainant. Though PW3 deposed that he has to verify the original of Ext. A2 to verify the direction given to the 1^st opposite party, the opposite parties do not have a case that Ext. A2 legal report is a manipulated or forged one. Hence the contention of PW3 is unsustainable in law. The deposition of PW3 and Ext. A2 legal report go to show that the opposite parties have collected the original title deeds from the complainant. Having accepted the originals of documents from the complainant and the complainant having duly remitted the loan amount, the opposite parties being legally liable to return the documents to the complainant, wherein they miserably failed goes in favour of the complainant. The above conduct of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in their service for which they are answerable whatsoever.

7. We also rely on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. According to the Hon'ble National Commission, the bank is liable to pay compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs for the inordinate delay in returning the title deed (Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd. Vs. Santha Sundararajan IV (2008) CPJ 94 (NC). We hold hands without demur on the supreme observation of the Hon'ble National Commission. Matters having been seriously considered above, we are but not to grant the compensation called for in full.

8. The opposite parties in their version affirmed their willingness to obtain the certified copies of the documents legally on which they are bound. The Consumer Forum being one to redress the grievances of the consumer primarily is not necessarily to punish the service provider unless warranted. In this case, we are of the considered opinion that ends of justice have been met squarely not to mention if at all the opposite parties aggrieved they are free to approach the appellate authorities.

9. In the result, we allow the complaint in part and direct as follows :

1. The opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) to the complainant for the reasons observed above.

2. The opposite parties shall jointly and severally obtain and supply to the complainant certified copies of the title deeds along with a certificate stating that the same is being issued since the originals of the documents are not traceable presently.

The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the above amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. till payment.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31^st day of January 2012.

Forwarded/By Order, Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.

Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :-

=========