The present Complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), has been filed against the Opposite Party Bank on the ground that the Complainant took a loan of approximately ₹67,94,000/- on 27.03.2012.  At the time of taking of the loan, and during the existence of the loan amount, on asking of the Opposite Party, the Complainant deposited the following documents with the Opposite Party:

1. Original full and final payment receipt dated 27.03.2012 issued by Seller in favour of borrowers;

2. Original letter dated 27.03.2012 addressed to the builder by borrowers (duly acknowledged by M/s Puri construction Pvt. Ltd.);

3. Original payment receipt dated 27.03.2012 for ₹67,94,000/- duly signed by borrowers for against pay order No.985930 dated 26.03.2012;

-2-

1. Original TPT agreement dated 09.03.2012 between builder, Axis Bank Ltd. and borrowers;

2. Original acknowledgment letter dated 27.03.2012 issued by M/s Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd. in favour of Mr. Sumit Garg and Mr. Amit Garg;

3. Original PTM dated 10.04.2012 issued by M/s Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd. in favour of Axis Bank;

4. Original payment receipt dated 30.07.2011 issued by M/s Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd. in favour of Mr. Sumit Garg and Mr. Amit Garg (endorsed in favour of Mr. Rajesh Gupta);

5. Original payment receipt dated 28.03.2012 issued by M/s Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd. in favour of Mr. Rajesh Gupta;

6. Original apartment buyers’ agreement dated 23.08.2011 between M/s Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd. & Mr. Amit Garg & Mr. Sumit Garg (endorsed in favour of Mr. Rajesh Gupta);

7. Original allotment letter dated 06.08.2011 issued by M/s Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Sumit Garg & Mr. Amit Garg (endorsed in favour of Mr. Rajesh Gupta);

8. Original conveyance deed dated 17.01.2012 executed by M/s Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd. in favour of Mr. Rajesh Gupta;

9. Original deed of apartments dated 17.01.2013 executed by M/s Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd. in favour of Mr. Rajesh Gupta;

10. Original ATS agreement dated 21.02.2012 between Mr. Sumit Garg and Rajesh Gupta.

2.       The entire loan amount was cleared by the Complainant on 13.11.2013 and his loan account was closed.  The Opposite Party, however, did not return all the documents which were deposited with them, despite the promise and several visits by the Complainant and writing several letters to them.  The Complainant has prayed that this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party and that the Opposite Party should be directed to supply the certified copies of the original documents; issue Indemnity Bond in favour of the Complainant indemnifying the present and future losses of the Complainant; to pay a sum of ₹1,25,00,000/- equivalent to the market value of the property towards financial damages; to pay ₹10,00,000/- towards mental agony, harassment etc.; to pay interest                      

-3-

@ 24% p.a. from 13.11.2013, the date on which the entire loan amount was paid and also award a sum of ₹1,00,000/- towards litigation expenses.

3.       The Complaint is contested by the Opposite Party.  The Opposite Party has not disputed the fact that they had sanctioned the loan to the Complainant and that the loan stood paid by the Complainant on 13.11.2013.  They had also not disputed the deposit of all the documents, as shown by the Complainant, with them.  However, it is stated that few of the documents, which were available with them, have been returned and the rest of the documents had lost and they are unable to return those documents.

4.       Parties have led their evidence by way of affidavit. 

5.       I have heard arguments and perused the relevant documents on record.

6.       The admitted facts are that at the time when the Complainant took loan from the Opposite Party, he had deposited the documents as enlisted by him.  The Complainant in his affidavit has admitted receipt of the following documents: 

a.       Original conveyance deed dated 17.1.2013 executed by M/s Purï Construction Pvt. Ltd. in favour of Mr. Rajesh Gupta;

b.       Original deed of apartments dated 17.1.2013 executed by M/s Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd. in favour of Mr. Rajesh Gupta;

c.       Original call notice dated 08.11.2012 issued by M/s Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd. in favour of Mr. Rajesh Gupta;

d.       Original permission to transfer letter issued by Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd. in favour of Mr. Sumit Gupta;

e.       Original call notice dated 09.03.2012 issued by Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd. in favour of Mr. Sumit Garg;

f.       Original offer of possession dated 08.11.2012 issued by Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd. in favour of Mr. Rajesh Gupta;

g.       Agreement to Sell dated 21.02.2012

h.       Original payment received amount of ₹874078 cheque no.378541 issued by Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd.

-4-

7.       The Opposite Party has not disputed the fact that they had failed to return all the documents which were entrusted to them by the Complainant.  Apparently, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party which has caused loss to the Complainant in the form that in the absence of these documents, it would certainly be not easy for the Complainant to put his property in market in case he wants to sell it.  Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party has submitted that the documents, which they have failed to return, have no importance in view of the fact that the Conveyance Deed, original Deed of Apartment, Agreement to Sell have already been returned and the documents, which they have failed to return, are the receipts only and therefore, it cannot be said that any substantial loss has occurred to the Complainant.  Learned Counsel for the Complainant has brought to my notice the fact that a very important document which is Builder Buyer’s Agreement and full and final payment receipt issued by seller and other receipts which show the complete payment and the original allotment letter, all these important documents have been lost by the Opposite Party and therefore, the argument that the lost documents have no value is meritless.

8.       The facts of the case clearly establish that the Opposite Party has failed to discharge their obligation towards their customer and have failed to return all the documents, which were entrusted.  The Opposite Party cannot at this stage take the plea that the documents which they had failed to return were of no value.  Had that been so, meaning thereby that if those documents

-5-

which they have lost were of no consequence and no value, there was no occasion for the Opposite Party to ask the Complainant to deposit these documents for sanction of the loan and for its continuance.  Apparently, the documents have the value.

9.       Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby give the following directions to the Opposite Party:

(i)      Issue Indemnity Bond in favour of the Complainant regarding all these documents;

(ii)      Pay ₹50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) to the Complainant towards financial damages;

(iii)     Pay ₹50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the Complainant towards mental agony, harassment, etc.

(iv)     ₹15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) to the Complainant towards litigation expenses.

10.     The abovesaid payments shall be made by the Opposite Party within four weeks from today, failing which the amounts shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the Complaint till actual realization.

          The Complaint stands disposed of in the above terms.