Delhi

StateCommission

A/787/2014

ALLAHABAD BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

SH. AMAR LAL BANSAL - Opp.Party(s)

02 Mar 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Decision: 2.3.2017

 

First Appeal- 787/2014

(Arising out of the order dated 30.06.2014 passed in Complainant Case No. 276/11 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (III), Janakpuri, New Delhi)

 

Allahabad Bank,

A body corporate constituted under

The Banking Companies (Acquisition &

Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 having its

Head Office at 2, Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkata

And a branch, amongst other places, at

Jwala Heri Main Market,

Paschim Vihar,

New Delhi.

…..Appellant

 

Versus

Sh. Amar Lal Bansal,

S/o Late Shri Duli Chand Bansal,

R/o RZB-17, Subhash Park,

Uttam Nagar,

New Delhi-110046.

                                                          .….Respondent

 

 

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

 

 1.      Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 

 

 

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

 

1. This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the “Act”) wherein challenge is made to order dated 30.6.14 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (III), Janakpuri, New Delhi in CC No.276/11 whereby the complaint is allowed and appellant/OP has been directed as under:

“Considering the entire facts and circumstances we hereby order that OP shall execute reconveyance deed in favour of the complainant, if complainant cooperates and shall also pay a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- on account of depreciation, if any, in the value of his property which shall be inclusive of compensation and litigation expenses.”

 

2. Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal are as under:

A complaint under Section 12 of the Act was filed by the respondent herein i.e. complainant before the District Forum stating therein that he took a loan of Rs.6 lacs from appellant/OP for a period of 15 years.  The entire loan was repaid within the period of 5-6 years and appellant/OP also issued NOC in his favour on 17.9.10 as well as a certificate showing that the entire interest was paid by him and the loan was cleared.  The respondent/complainant had alleged that at the time of grant of loan, he had deposited sale deed No.16143, Volume No.10666 in additional Book No.1 at pages 125-131 in the office of the Sub-Registrar-II, registered on 28.11.02 in respect of property No.RZ-B-17, Subhash Park, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi along with complete chain of documents.  He had alleged that after repayment of loan, the aforesaid property documents i.e. original title deed along with complete chain of documents were not returned to him and the appellant/OP kept on postponing the matter on one pretext or the other.   Ultimately the appellant/OP informed him that the original title deed along with complete chain of documents were lost/misplaced.  Thereupon he had filed a complaint with PS Paschim Vihar on 11.1.11.  The respondent/complainant had alleged that he had entered into agreement for sale in respect of the aforesaid property for a sum of Rs.40 lacs with one Pawan Gulati, resident of E-119, Prashant Vihar and had also received Rs.4 lacs as ‘biyana’.  Since the sale deed could not be executed in the absence of original title deed, he had to repay double of the ‘biyana’ amount to the purchaser. The respondent/complainant had alleged that in the absence of original title deed, he was unable to sell the aforesaid property as such a complaint was filed before the Ld. District Forum seeking directions to OP to return the original title deed along with complete chain of documents of property which was mortgaged with bank and also to pay him a compensation of Rs.10 lacs for the hardships suffered by him.  

3. The complaint was contested by appellant/OP by filing written statement wherein the advancement of loan as well as its repayment, issuance of NOC and interest certificate were admitted.  The appellant/OP had alleged that only the sale deed of the property was deposited with them at the time of taking the loan and complete chain of documents were not deposited with them.  The appellant/OP had admitted that the original sale deed had been misplaced by them.  The lodging of report with PS Paschim Vihar was also admitted.  It was also alleged that appellant/OP was ready to execute the registered reconveyance document in favour of the respondent/complainant.
4. Rejoinder was filed by the respondent/complainant wherein the averments made in the complaint case were reiterated.
5. Both the parties filed evidence by way of affidavits.
6. After hearing the parties, Ld. District Forum held that from evidence on record, it is not established that the respondent/complainant had deposited chain of documents with the appellant/OP as was alleged.  Ld. District Forum held that since the original title deed was lost/misplaced by the appellant/OP bank, the value of the property has depreciated to some extent, as such the District Forum considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case ordered the appellant/OP to execute reconveyance deed, if respondent/complainant was ready to cooperate and also ordered to pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- in favour of the respondent/complainant on account of depreciation.  The other contention of the respondent/complainant of having suffered loss because of loss of sale deed was not accepted by Ld. District Forum by holding that no evidence in this regard was led by respondent/complainant.
7. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, present appeal is filed.
8. Ld. Counsel for the appellant/OP bank has submitted that appellant bank has no grievance as regards directions given by the Ld. District Forum to the appellant/OP bank to execute reconveyance deed in favour of the respondent/complainant, if respondent/complainant cooperates.  It is stated that the appellant/OP is ready to execute reconveyance deed and the appeal is not pressed for the said direction.  The only grienvance of the appellant/OP is that compensation awarded by the Ld. District Forum is on very higher side and prayer is made for reducing the same.  Ld. Counsel for the appellant/OP has contended that the sale deed in question was executed in favour of the respondent/complainant by Smt. Raj Bala Bansal i.e. his wife only, being the GPA holder.  It is submitted that the respondent/complainant himself is in possession of the complete chain of documents including the original GPA which is his wife as such the respondent/complainant can get the sale deed executed in his favour or obtain a certified copy of the already executed sale deed or can rely upon the reconveyance deed which the appellant/OP bank is ready to execute in his favour.  In these circumstances, compensation awarded is on higher side.
9. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondent/complainant to assist us.  Perusal of the record shows that respondent/complainant has not appeared on the past two dates also i.e. 7.4.16 & 22.8.16. 
10. It has come on record that the sale deed in question is of Property No. RZ B-17, Subhash Park, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi having plot area of 50 Sq. Yds. which was in favour of respondent/complainant.  It is a matter of common knowledge that in the absence of original title deed in favour of the respondent/complainant, the market value of the property is reduced.  It will not be easy for the respondent/complainant to get a buyer for the property in respect of which original title deed has been lost.  People are reluctant in buying such a property.  Further sufferings and hardships have also been caused to the respondent/complainant for misplacing of title deed by the appellant bank.  The appellant/OP bank was under legal obligation to keep the documents in safe custody.  The compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- has been awarded by the Ld. District Forum considering the totality of facts and circumstances which is inclusive of compensation and litigation cost.  The Ld. District Forum has passed well reasoned order.  We find no reason to interfere with the compensation awarded by the Ld. District Forum. 
11. The appeal stands dismissed.
12. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirement be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum.  Thereafter, the file be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member