JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.      Counsel for the parties present. Costs deposited by the bank. Arguments heard.

2.      This order will decide these two first appeals before this Commission against the same order of the State Commission.

3.      In a nutshell, the facts of this case are that Mr. Ramesh Kalyan Durg and his wife, Mrs. Syamala Vellala took loan from the Citibank, the OPs in this case. They had given a security of their sale deed and link documents of the house. The said sale deed along with link documents were misplaced. The bank made frantic efforts to search the said documents but to no avail. It clearly goes to show that the bank was terribly remiss in the discharge of its duty. The State Commission came to the following conclusion:

“In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- for the negligence and deficiency in service in not returning the original documents and also to execute an indemnity bond for the value of the property of Rs.10 lakhs to indemnity the loss in case the original documents are mis-used by any person by depositing the same to secure loan from any creditor or financier. The opposite parties are also directed to pay litigation costs of Rs.5,000/-. Compliance to be made within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.”

4.      Aggrieved by this order both the parties have filed separate appeals.

5.      Counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the condition of executing the indemnity bond for the value of Rs.10,00,000/- to indemnify the loss in case the original documents are misused, was not prayed for in the complaint itself. She wants modification in this condition. In support of her case, she has cited few authorities. In the case of State of Orissa and Anr. Vs. Mamta Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436 it was held that when relief is not claimed in the complaint that relief cannot be granted.

6.      We find force in her argument in a measure. The complainants have never made claim of such indemnity bond but on the contrary has claimed Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service. Legally, the order rendered by the State Commission cannot be rejected at all. Instead of directing to pay compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- the bank is directed to furnish a bond in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- only and the OP itself admitted in the written statement that they are ready to execute any document in order to instill confidence in the complainant.

7.      Counsel for the appellant herself has produced one authority of the State Commission i.e. Indian Overseas Bank Vs. Sri K. Bal Reddy & Anr., FA No.620 of 2013, decided on 13-06-2014 pertaining to the Andhra Pradesh State Commission. The judgment is authored by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gopala Krishna Tamada. In this judgment, para 12 runs as follows:

“In view of the principle laid in the aforementioned cases, the award of an amount of Rs.6,26,520/- towards compensation on account of loss of the title deed appears to be on higher side particularly when a sum of Rs.One lakh has been granted towards compensation for the respondent suffering mental tension. As such, this Commission is inclined to reduce the amount of Rs.6,26,520/- awarded as compensation for loss of the title deed to Rs.3,00,000/- and maintain the other reliefs awarded in favour of the respondents.”

8.      She has also produced another judgment of this Commission in case of Abdul Hafeez Vs. State Bank of Hyderabad, RP No.3839 of 2012, decided on 02-04-2013, wherein this Commission held:

“Therefore, taking into consideration of the totality of the circumstances and the ratio laid in the aforementioned decision, we are of the opinion that the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- awarded by the District Forum towards compensation is of higher side and not commensurate with the degree of deficiency found on the part of the appellant bank in rendering service to the respondent. As such, the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- awarded is scaled down to Rs.1,00,000/-.

12.    In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order which calls for any interference and revision petition is liable to be dismissed at admission stage.

9.      Keeping in view all these facts and circumstances we modify the order and give the fresh directions. The complainant would be given compensation in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- by demand draft in the name of Ramesh Kalyan Durg by the bank. Secondly, a public notice will be published by the bank in “Times of India” and “Eenadu” (State Edition). The amount of publication will be paid by the bank. That will be done within 15 days from today. Otherwise it will carry penalty of Rs.100/- per day till the needful is done. Thirdly, the bank will get a certified copy of the sale deed and link documents with the help of the complainants and all the expenses shall be borne by the bank. The complainants will approach them within a period of 15 days and the needful should be done within 60 days otherwise penalty of Rs.100/- per day shall be imposed upon the bank. Fourthly, if in future the complainants suffer the loss due to loss of the said documents the bank will be liable to compensate the complainant. The bank will lodge an FIR with the police station immediately.

8.      The First Appeals stand disposed of. Order be given dasti on              08-06-2016.