: J U D G M E N T :
This is a case under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The facts of the case to put in a nutshell, are as below:-
The complainant, Bijoy Kumar Banik took a bank loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the OP, Manager, Nabadwip Co-operative Bank Ltd. by depositing the original title deed being No. 960 of 1993 of the property received from his mother by way of gift dtd. 11.05.93. The complainant repaid the loan along with the interest on 27.03.10 and NOC was issued by the Bank on 01.09.10. Thereafter the original title deed was demanded by the complainant but it was lost by OP bank. Without original title deed the complainant is facing a lot of inconvenience. He cannot transfer the property in absence of the original title deed. GD entry No. 727 dtd. 16.08.09 was filed by the bank at Nabadwip P.S. The complainant has to prepare another original deed and he has to incur the expenditure of Rs. 93,750/-. The present market value of the original title deed is Rs. 15,00,000/-. The property belongs to Ashalata Banik mother of the complainant. The complainant shall have to pay Rs. 2,50,000/- to his three brothers and two sisters totalling Rs. 12,50,000/- + Rs. 75,000/- as stamped duties and Rs. 5000/- as financial expenditure. The cause of action arose on 27.03.10 when the borrower paid the entire loan. The case was filed on 21.05.12. The complainant has prayed for Rs. 12,50,000/- + 93,750/- + compensation of Rs. 5,000/-.
The OP has contested the case by filing written version challenging the complaint of the complainant. The case of the OP may be summarized as below:-
The case of the OP is that a loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- was sanctioned in favour of the complainant. He took loan keeping his title deed being No. 960 of 1993 executed by the mother of the complainant in his fabour. The loan was repaid availing O.T.S. where interest exemption was availed by the complainant is of Rs. 1,44,981/- and necessary certificate was issued in favour of the complainant accordingly.
The accountant of the Bank Nirmal Kanti Goswami was in charge of the loan department. It was detected that the deed was not available. Nirmal Kanti Goswami on 16.08.2010 lodged a G.D.E. being No. 727 with Nabadwip P.S. Be it mentioned here that the ASI concerned while made endorsement in the petition wrote the date as 16.08.09 wrongly.
The fact was duly intimated to the complainant. A certified copy of the deed along with a copy of G.D.E. was sent to him. The Board as well as the Manager concerned expressed their regret to him.
The complainant has not faced any material loss. Even then he has filed this case being instigated to malign the image of the Bank.
Complainant tendered affidavit evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, Narahari Banik. OPW – 1, Charan Guin is the Branch Manager of the Bank.
OPW-2 is Gourab Patra, the present Manager of the Bank. OPW-3 is the I/C Nabadwip. He came to prove the GD Entry No. 727. His representative is OPW-4.
POINTS FOR DECISION
- Point No. 1: Has the Bank lost the deposited deed?
- Point No. 2: Was the complainant a defaulter in repayment of the loan?
- Point No. 3: What relief the complainant is entitled to get?
REASOND DECISIONS
For the purpose of brevity and convenience all the points are taken up together for discussion.
It is admitted that the complainant was a consumer when he took bank loan from the OP, Nabadwip Cooperative Credit Bank. It is also admitted that the complainant defaulted in repayment of loan for which he mortgaged the property being deed No. 960/1993. The loan was repaid by OP availing OTS where interest exemption was availed by him was of Rs. 1,44,981/- (vide ‘Para – 10’ of the written version on 10.09.2012 see also letter, dtd. 19.02.09 signed by Joy Banerjee, the Secretary OTS Sub-committee). Thus, it is clear that according to Rules of RBI the OP Bank showed a favour to the OP by exempting Rs. 1,44,981/-.
Thus, the above discussion answers issue No. 1 & 2.
Now the question is whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief for loss of his deed from the bank / custody.
It is clear that the bank has acted negligently for which the loss of deed has taken place. However, Ld. Advocate for the OP bank has submitted before us Sections 65 and 79 of the’ Indian Evidence Act’ in order to strengthen his argument that the certified copy of the deed can be relied upon when the original has been lost.
We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, interrogatories and replies thereto. We are also convinced by the evidence given by both parties mentioned above. When there is GD Entry No. 727 dtd. 16.08.10 regarding loss of original deed from the bank (OP) the OP should be compensated keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case including the exemption from liability to pay interest to the tune of Rs. 1,44,981/-.
We have gone through the following case laws filed by Ld. Advocate for OP Sri Kanai Lal Biswas:-
- AIR 1989 Orissa 27
- AIR 2000 Madras 465
- AIR 1979 Gauhati 14
We have also gone through the judgment filed by Ld. Advocate for the complainant Satyabrata Ghosh. The unreported case of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the judgment was delivered on 02.09.05 in Original Petition No. 70 of 2002.
The complainant has not succeeded in establishing the amount of compensation claimed by him in the complaint petition. As per law Evidence Act, Section 65 and 79 the certified copy of the deed No. 960 of 1993 has same value as original which was lost. The complainant has failed to establish that he suffered loss of Rs. 12,50,000/- or Rs. 93,750/- or compensation amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-.
Hence, a token amount of compensation should be given to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- only.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case CC/2012/34 be and the same is allowed in part on contest.
The OP is directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant as compensation plus litigation cost of Rs. 2,000/- totalling Rs. 7,000/- within one month failing which the amount shall carry an interest @ 9% per annum till the date of realization of the full amount.
The OP Bank is also directed to file before this Forum a certificate with non-encumbrance note regarding loss of the original deed being No. 960/1993, dtd. 11.05.1993 touching upon property at Daag No. 1333, Mouza 20, Khatian No. 4595.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
