UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA, MEMBER 

                This is an Appeal u/s 15 of the C P Act, 1986 which has been filed by the Appellant/OP challenging the judgment and order dated 14/12/2016 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata unit II in Complaint Case No. 272/2016 allowing the complaint on contest against the Appellant/OP.

                The Appellant/OP was directed to return the original Deed to the Respondent/Complainant. In case the original Deed was not traced out, the Appellant/OP was directed to arrange for issuing the certified copy of the Sale Deed in favour of the Respondent/Complainant through the concerned authorities in the manner laid down in the order itself.

                The Appellant/OP was further directed to pay litigation cost and compensation to the tunes of Rs. 10,000/- and 20,000/- respectively to the Respondent/Complainant.

                The actions, as detected, were to be taken within a period of 60 days from the date of passing the impugned judgment and order, failing which, the Respondent/Complainant was given liberty to initiate execution proceedings against the Appellant/OP in accordance with law and in that case, as directed, the Appellant/OP would be liable to pay a fine @ Rs. 100/-per diem to be paid of the impugned judgment and order till compliance of the order in toto.

                The facts of the case, in a nutshell, were that the Respondent/Complainant, with a view to purchasing a landed property, obtained loan from the erstwhile Tata Home Finance Ltd. For an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-in the year 2001. The Tata Home Finance Ltd. got amalgamated with IDBI Home Finance Ltd. And thereafter, in the year 2011, the erstwhile IDBI Home finance Ltd. got amalgamated with the IDBI Bank Ltd. Consequent upon the last and ultimate amalgamation, the assets and liabilities of the erstwhile financial institutions devolved upon the IDBI Bank Ltd. and naturally the Account opened in favour of the Respondent/Complainant in respect of the said loan was no exception.

                The Sale Deed in respect of the subject landed property was registered on 13/11/2011 at the office of the District Sub-Registrar, Alipur and a pending IGR No. P-2209 dated 13/11/2001, purely provisional, was issued against the Registration and the same, in original, was deposited with the Appellant/OP Bank. The Respondent/Complainant ensured full repayment of loan with interest well ahead of the target date for completion of repayment but, did not get back the original Deed of Registration in respect of the landed property in spite of persuasion including formal communications dated 05/08/2004 and 27/01/2015 being made. A meeting of reconciliation arranged under the aegis of the CA and FBP on 16/02/2015 in response to the complaint filed by the Respondent/Complainant against the Appellant/OP also yielded no fruitful result.

                There being no alternative but to take legal action to protect his interest, the Respondent/Complainant filed the complaint case before the Ld. District Forum which the impugned judgment and order relates to.

                Heard Ld. Advocates appearing on behalf of both sides.

                The Ld. Advocate for the Appellant/OP submitted that it had no other point of dispute but the fact of non-appreciation of its incapability to return the claimed Sale Deed which the Respondent/Complainant had not deposited with it at all. As submitted, the Deed, as per practice prevailing at the relevant point of time, was registered with less stamp duty on condition of payment of balance stamp duty before delivery of the Sale-Deed. An IGR bearing pending number P-2209 dated 13/11/2001was issued against the said registration.

                As further submitted, admittedly, the original IGR was received subsequently by the Bank but it had never received the Title Deed. It would rather reveal from the reply at running page 42, against question No. 2 at running page 38, the Respondent/Complainant himself did not make payment of balance stamp duty. Collection of the Deed, in the given circumstances, was not possible.

                The Ld. Advocate, drawing the notice of the Bench to Annexure- E at running page No. 34, being the communication made to it by its Ld. Advocate, submitted that the said communication itself was a document of evidentiary value since it assigned clearly the reasons for the Appellant/OP’s inability to collect the Deed due to wrong recording of the Deed No. in the IGR and also due to absence of the practice of searching the record with pending or provisional number in the said office.

                The Ld. Advocate continued to submit further that the Respondent/Complainant’s plea of his inability towards payment of the balance stamp duty for not having in possession the IGR in original does not hold good here. Acknowledging the fact that the original IGR was in possession of the Appellant/OP, the Ld. Advocate contended that as per prevailing practice, the balance stamp duty could well be deposited with the concerned DSR without producing the IGR in original.

                The Ld. Advocate concluded with the submission that the complaint being a frivolous one and based on a cooked up story, the instant Appeal should be allowed setting aside the impugned judgment and order.

                The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent/Complainant, per contra, submitted ventilating his grievance that the Appellant/OP should have collected the Title Deed out of its own initiative since the IGR in original admittedly was lying with it. The Ld. Advocate refused to admit the fact of his client being communicated with the information of the Appellant/OP’s inability to collect the Title Deed as claimed.

                As contended, the Bank had actually received the Title Deed and now disowning its liability with an ulterior motive as, it was difficult to believe that the Bank would wait years together to get the registered title Deed in original. As contended further, in case the Appellant/OP had failed to collect the Sale Deed although it was holding the IGR in original, it was a major lapse on his part. The Respondent/complainant, as the Ld. Advocate continued, was kept in dark about the non-lifting of the Deed. Now, as apprehended by him, due to subsequent enhancement of stamp duty, the balance amount to be paid by him would multiply considerably compared to what would have been needed had the Deed been lifted in time. This way, as submitted, the Appellant/OP had committed deficiency in rendering its services putting the Respondent/complainant an avoidable financial loss.

                The Ld. Advocate, with the above submission, prayed for the Appeal to be dismissed affirming the impugned judgment and order.

                Perused the papers on record. Considered submission of Ld. Advocates appearing on behalf of both sides. It appeared that there was no point of disputes other than that of the Appellant/OP’s not giving back the Sale Deed which the Appellant/OP claimed to have not been able to collect at all as there was an erroneous recording of the particulars of Sale Deed in the IGR and also for not depositing with the DSR office concerned the balance stamp duties which the Respondent/complaint was required to deposit at the time of taking delivery of the Sale Deed. The Respondent/Complainant’s contradiction was directed against the Appellant/OP’s non- cooperation by not taking effective step towards taking delivery of the Deed in time and not keeping the Respondent/Complainant aware of the situation under which the Deed could not be collected.

                Admittedly, the IGR in original was in possession of the Appellant/OP. With the IGR still remaining in possession of the Appellant/OP., the question of lifting the Deed from the DSR office did not arise at all. Further, if it is a fact that the Deed was not lifted from the DSR office by the Appellant/OP Bank, there cannot be any question of returning the same to the Respondent/complainant.

                Moreover, the uncontroverted statement of the Appellant/OP towards Respondent/complainant’s liability for paying a balance stamp duty at the time of taking delivery of the Deed makes us believe the fact that the delivery of the Deed has been subjected to payment of balance stamp duty. Our belief gets firmer by the Ld. Advocate’s apprehension of multiplication of cost in the form of balance stamp duty with the passage of time which he has expressed at the time of submission.

                The reply of the Respondent/complainant at running page 42 against question no. 2 at running page 38, revealed that the said balance stamp duty had not been paid by the respondent/complainant. It is, therefore, an obvious inference that the subject deed was not lifted by the Respondent/complainant on fulfillment of the given condition of payment of the balance stamp duty.

                The logic behind the argument of the Ld. Advocate of the Respondent/complainant about the lapses on the part of the appellant/OP for not making the Respondent/Complainant aware of their incapability to collect the Deed was absolutely unacceptable as the circumstances were more revealing about the Respondent/complainant’s indifference to safeguard his own interest. He should have even been more vigilant about the collection of Deed on payment of the balance duty which was to be done by him only and none else. He should have also played a proactive role to deposit the said Deed with the Appellant/OP since the issue involved the security of his own property.

                We did not find any reason to conclude that the Appellant/OP committed willingly or unwillingly any deficiency in rendering services to the Respondent/Complainant. Accordingly, we intend to allow the Appeal setting aside the impugned judgment and order.

                Hence,

                                                                             Ordered

that the Appeal be and the same is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and order stands set aside and consequently, the Complaint Case stands dismissed. No order as to costs.