1.       This appeal has been filed under section 19 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 11.02.2019 of the State Commission in complaint no. 148 of 2017.

2.       No one appears for the appellants (the ‘financial institution’). Mr. Faizan F. Sheikh, learned counsel is present for the respondent (the ‘complainant’).

Perused the record, including inter alia the State Commission’s impugned Order dated 11.02.2019, the application for condonation of delay and the memorandum of appeal.

3.       The appeal has been filed with self-admitted delay of 42 days.

Considering the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay, as also in order to decide the matter on merit rather than to dismiss it on the threshold of limitation, the delay is condoned.

4.       Briefly, as evinces from a perusal of the impugned Order of the State Commission, the complainant had taken a loan of Rs.13 lakh from the financial institution. After repaying the loan with interest i.e. after liquidating the loan, the original title documents of his property were not returned by the financial institution.

The State Commission has ordered the financial institution to return the original title documents within one month and failing which to pay compensation of Rs. 5 lakh within 60 days, beyond which the said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay in making the payment. It has also awarded cost of litigation of Rs.10 thousand.

5.       It is well evident from para 3 of the State Commission’s impugned Order that service of notice was duly effected on the financial institution. The financial institution however chose to remain absent, and was therefore proceeded against ex parte. On the face of it the State Commission cannot be faulted on this count.

6.       A reading of its Order shows that the State Commission has not just cursorily agreed with the allegations made by the complainant but on the contrary it has duly examined the evidence proffered by the complainant including inter alia a letter dated 10.07.2017 from the financial institution in which it has been explicitly admitted that the original title documents were not traceable. The Order is well appraised and reasoned.

7.       Be that as it may, the award made by the State Commission is entirely fair to both sides, including specifically the financial institution which is the appellant herein. The State Commission has given it further opportunity to return the original title documents. Only in case of failure has it been required to pay monetary compensation for the loss and injury suffered on account of non-availability of the original title documents. That is to say, the financial institution has been given more opportunity by the State Commission to locate and return the original title documents and only if it is not able to do so has it been ordered to pay monetary compensation in the alternative.

8.       In its memorandum of appeal the financial institution has expressly admitted that the original title documents had been lost and could not be returned to the complainant. There is however no inkling therein as to whether any inquiry was ever conducted to fix accountability and responsibility and to undertake systematic improvements for future so that other ‘consumers’ are not put to similar loss and injury.

9.       Non-availability of its original title documents unarguably puts a property under suspicion in the eyes of the general public or prospective buyers and decidedly impacts its value and saleability adversely. The consequences continue in permanence, they continue even after the property has devolved to the heirs i.e. the adverse consequences in respect of the value and saleability of the property continue to sustain indefinitely. The damaging consequences of non-availability of original title documents appear to have been realistically and pragmatically appreciated in the right perspective by the State Commission.

Additionally, the requisite necessary action on loss of the original title documents, like lodging of first information report with the police and public notice and reconstructing the documents, ought to have been undertaken with earnest dispatch. Though even if the requirements are fulfilled and the documents are reconstructed, the loss and injury is not offset in its entirety, the suspicion on the property and the detrimental impact on its value and saleability are not entirely mitigated but still continue to obtain to a fair extent. In the present case however even the requirements do not appear to have been undertaken. There is nothing to show that any first information report was lodged with the police or any public notice was published. And, admittedly, the documents have not been reconstructed and duly made available to the complainant even when the loss occurred way back in 2017.

As such the monetary compensation of Rs. 5 lakh awarded by the State Commission in the contingency of the original title documents not being returned appears to be entirely just and equitable, it cannot be said in any way that the same is not commensurate with the loss and injury suffered by the complainant. 

10.               The appeal being totally bereft of worth stands dismissed.

11.     Since the original title documents have not been located and returned within the time period stipulated by the State Commission, the monetary compensation awarded in the alternative, inclusive of the interest for the period of delay in making payment, is required to be paid by the financial institution to the complainant.

As such the amount if any deposited by the financial institution with the State Commission in compliance of this Commission’s Order dated 06.08.2019 along with interest if any accrued thereon shall be forthwith released by the State Commission to the complainant as per the due procedure. The balance awarded amount shall be made good by the financial institution within six weeks from today, failing which the State Commission shall undertake execution, for ‘enforcement’ and for ‘penalty’, as per the law.

12.     The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the appeal and to their learned counsel as well as to the State Commission immediately. The stenographer is also requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.