BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 7^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

ORDER

SRI.K.S.BILAGI, PRESIDENT

1. This complaint has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

(a) Directing the OP to return the original documents or to quantify the loss suffered by complainant by paying Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation.

(b) Directing the OP to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation due to the mental agony and stress suffered by the complainant and his family.

(c) Directing the OP to pay the cost incurred towards legal expenses in the ends of justice.

(d) Pass such other further orders as this Hon’ble Forum deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The case set up by the complainant in brief is as under:-

The complainant had availed top-up loan of Rs.2,47,000/- from OP No.3 by depositing title deeds and other documents and agreed to pay interest at 8% p.a.  The OP No.3 confirmed the deposit of title deeds and other documents by way of letter dated 30.08.2006.

3. It is further case of the complainant that he has completed the loan and obtained No Due letter from OP No. on 02.03.2020. Despite repeated requests, the OP No.3 failed to return the original documents.

4. At present guidelines value in BBMP area is Rs.55,000/- per sq.mt. and property of the complainant is at close vicinity of Metro Railway Station.  The OP No.3 failed to return the documents despite legal notice dated 26.05.2020.  This act of the OPs amounts to deficiency of service.  Therefore, complainant suffered loss of Rs.20,00,000/- for want of original documents and OPs are liable to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation. 

5. In response to the notice, OP Nos.2 and 3 only appear.  OP No.3 has filed version which has been adopted by OP No.2 by filing memo.  Despite receipt of notice, OP No.1 failed to appear before this Commission and OP has been placed exparte.

6. OP Nos.2 and 3 contend that the contents of complaint are false and baseless.  They admit that the complainant availed loan from OP No.3 by depositing the title deeds.  The documents of the complainant were not traced.  Even though complainant closed his loan account by paying entire dues.  Accordingly, OP No.3 has lodged complaint with the police and got published in Indian Express about loss of the documents.  They deny that the price within the vicinity of the property of the complainant is Rs.55,000/- per sq.mt.

7. The complainant had availed loan of Rs.74,02,000/- on 12.12.2015 and top-up loan of Rs.2,47,000/- on 23.11.2009.  Unfortunately, they were not able to trace the original documents despite their best efforts.  There was no intention on their part cause loss to the complainant.  There is no deficiency of service.  They request to dismiss this complaint.

8. The complainant filed his affidavit evidence and relies on certain documents.  The OP files affidavit evidence of Branch Manager and rely on one document.  Heard the arguments.       

9. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of OPs?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to reliefs mentioned in the complaint?
3. What order?

10. Our answers to the above points are as under:

       Point No.1:  In the affirmative.

      Point No.2: Affirmative in part

      Point No.3: As per final orders

REASONS

11. Point Nos.1 and 2:  Most of the facts are not in dispute.  It is relevant to refer some of the admitted facts, before considering the real controversy between the parties.  The complainant has availed top up loan of Rs.2,47,000/- on 16.11.2019.  It is also proved from the case set up by the complainant, evidence of complainant, admission of OP Nos.2 and 3 and letter dated 02.03.2020 housing loan of the complainant came to be closed on 18.02.2020.  However, the original documents of the complainant were not returned.  Accordingly, OP No.3 got published in public notice in two newspapers about the lost of documents of the complainant.  It is true that by issuing legal notice dated 29.05.2020, the complainant called upon the OPs to return the following eight documents:

1. Copy of sale deed dated 10.02.1972.
2. Original sale deed dated 12.07.1996.
3. Special notice dated 31.01.1997.
4. Copy of khatha certificate.
5. Approved plan
6. Khatha certificate dated 07.03.2003.
7. Tax paid receipt dated 23.02.2007.
8. Encumbrance certificate from the year 1971 to 2005.

12. The OP No.1 got issued legal reply as per document No.7 produced by the complainant stating that due to merger of State Bank of Mysuru in the year 2017, documents are either lost or misplaced.
13. The loss of the documents has been admitted by OP Nos.2 and 3.  The complainant claims Rs.20,00,000/- as OPs failed to return the original documents with compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.  The loan availed only Rs.2,47,000/- and when original documents are not traceable, we cannot direct the OPs to return the original documents claimed by the complainant.
14. It is true that the complainant has been put under some loss due to the lost of the original documents.  The complainant has produced gazette notification prescribing the rates per sq.mt. at different places of Bengaluru.  The complainant has availed loan by depositing title deeds with OPs in Gayathrinagar.  On 05.12.2018, the rate prescribed by the Government in Gayathrinagar was Rs.55,000/- per sq.mtr.  This valuation is only for the purpose of registration, it does not mean that on 18.02.2020, the actual market value of the property in Gayathrinagar was Rs.55,000/- per sq.mtr.  The Government guidelines rate in the year 2018 at Rs.55,000/- per sq.mtr is only to get registration fee and stamp duty to curb under valuation.  Therefore, there is no rationality in complainant claiming this rate as loss of value.
15. Even though, complainant asserts that his property situated within vicinity of metro railway station.  But he has not produced any map showing the location of his property near the metro railway station.  The complainant has not produced any sale deed showing the value of the property was much more in the year 2020 in his locality.  The complainant has not whispered what is the measurement of his property to claim compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- + Rs.5,00,000/-.  This claim has no rational basis.  Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to Rs.25,00,000/-.
16. It is true that the complainant was put under some loss which can be compensated directing the OPs to furnish certified copy of all the documents referred by the complainant at their costs.  The lost of documents was due to negligence of the OPs for which it is proper to award compensation.
17. The OP Nos.2 and 3 have produced statement of account of the complainant for the period from 12.12.2005 to 20.11.2021 which indicates that the loan account of the complainant came to be closed on 12.12.2019 much prior to filing this complaint.
18. We carefully perused the following decisions relied by the complainant:-

1. 2020 SCC online NCDRC 12 in the case of ICICI Bank Ltd., and others Vs. Rajesh Khandelwal and another
2. Order in CC No.1021/2016 of NC in the matter between Sheel Sohal and another Vs. Axis Bank Ltd.,
3. Order of NC in revision Petition No.2732/2019 in the matter between State Bank of India Vs. Amitesh Mazumder.

19. In the first decision, the bank was directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost.  In the said case, the complainant had taken loan from OPs to the tune of Rs.17,50,000/-.  But, in the present case on hand, the complainant had taken loan from OP No.3 to the tune of Rs.2,47,000/-.  In the second decision, the direction was issued to bank to pay Rs.10,00,000/- to the complainant due to loss by misplacement of original title deeds.   In this case, loan availed was Rs.30,37,202/-.  The loan amount and compensation awarded were taken into consideration, the complainant had claimed Rs.1.10 crore towards damage caused due to loss.
20. The complainant has not produced any document to show that prospective buyers quoted the lesser rate.  In the last decision, the loan availed was Rs.13,50,000/- and bank was directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.30,000/- as litigation costs. 
21. Admittedly, the complainant has availed loan of Rs.2,47,000/- with interest at 8% p.a. in the year 2006 and repaid the same in the year 2019.  Under such circumstances and looking to the quantum of the loan availed and efforts made by the OPs to trace misplaced documents, it is proper to award Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost.  In addition to this, the Ops are liable to furnish all the certified copy of the original documents at their costs to the complainant.
22. Point No.3:- In view of the discussion referred above, the complaint requires to be allowed in part.  The OPs are liable to furnish the certified copy of the documents referred by the complainant at their own cost, liable to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation. Hence, we proceed to pass the following 

  O R D E R

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The OPs shall furnish the certified copy of the documents referred by the complainant at their own costs, to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost.
3. The OPs shall comply this order within 30 days from this date.
4. Furnish the copy of this order and return the documents to the complainant with extra pleadings.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 7^th day of February, 2022)

Documents produced by the Complainant which are marked as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.7:

Documents produced by the OP Nos.2 and 3 which is marked as Ex.B.1: