BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD

 FA 1234 of  2013  against CC No. 657 of 2011, District Consumer Forum- III, Hyderabad.

Between

1.  Branch Manager,

     State Bank of India,

     Hitech City Branch,

     Hyderabad-500 081.

2.   General manager,

      State Bank of India, Local Head Office,

      Bank Street, Koti,

      Hyderabad – 500 095.                      .. appellants /opposite parties

And

K.Ramalingeshwar Rao,

S/o (Late) KLN Sharma,

Aged : 57 years,

Occ.: Chief Surgeon/BHEL/Trichy-14,

Flat No.304 & 305,

Block No.3, R.V.’s Madhav Brindavan,

Chandanagar, Serlingampally Mandal,

Ranga Reddy District                       .. Respondent/Complainant

Counsel for the Appellant                                            :               M/s.. Vamaraju Srikrishnudu

Counsel for the Respondent                                       :               M/s. K. Gopal

QUORUM:  

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, PRESIDENT

AND

SRI  R. LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND  DAY  OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN

Oral Order :   ( As per Sri R. Lakshminarasimha Rao , Hon’ble Member )

***

1.                            The opposite party-bank is the appellant.  The appeal is directed against the order dated 11.11.2013 in C.C.No.657 of 2011 on the file of the District Forum, Hyderabad-III.

2.                            The respondent availed housing loan of Rs.6,34,000/- from the appellant-bank for the purpose of purchase of a Flat.  Subsequently, the loan account bearing number HTL Account no. 10891671253   of the respondent was transferred to Kailasapuram branch, Tiruchunapallly, Tamil Nadu State. The respondent repaid the loan on 06.10.2010 and the Kailasapuram branch informed the same to the appellant-bank through letter dated 14.10.2010 and the respondent requested for return of the title deed which was mortgaged at the time of availing the loan from the appellant-bank.

3.                            The respondent filed the complaint on the premise of  the appellant-bank’s negligence in keeping the mortgaged documents safe and its failure to return them to him after he made repayment of the loan amount. The appellant-bank resisted the claim on the ground that on request of the respondent, his loan account along with the entire record was transferred to Kailasapuram branch and the respondent without approaching the Kailasapuram branch and without impleading it, filed the complaint.

4.                            In support of his case, the respondent filed his affidavit. The documents filed by him had been marked ExA1 to A7. On behalf of the appellant-bank, its chief manager had filed his affidavit and the appellant had not chosen to adduce documentary evidence.

5.                            The District Forum allowed the complaint opining that the appellant had sent copy of the sale deed to Kailasapuram branch and it had to reap  the fruits of its negligence on account of loss of the sale deed while the document  has been in its possession.

6.                            Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite party-bank has filed appeal contending that it made rigorous search for tracing the document and the District Forum failed to consider its plea that the appellant had sent the entire record to Kailasapuram branch and that issuance of certificate and publication about the loss of the document would serve the purpose and the respondent can deal with the property as also that without the title deed the property would not lose its market value. The appellant has contended that the District Forum awarded relief which was not sought for by the respondent and that the compensation awarded is excessive.

7.                            The learned counsel for the respondent has filed written submissions.

8.                            The point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is vitiated by misappreciation of facts or law?

09.                          The respondent availing housing loan of Rs.6,34,000/- from the appellant-bank and repayment of the loan by him on 06.10.2010 is not disputed. It is not in dispute between the parties that the respondent mortgaged documents including the title deed with the appellant-bank at the time of availing the loan. The appellant-bank transferred the loan account of the respondent  to Kailasapuram branch, Tiruchunapallly, Tamil Nadu State where the respondent repaid loan amount.Admittedly, the appellant transferred the loan account on the  request of the respondent.

10.                          The appellant had sent all the documents in original except that of the title deed to its Kailasapuram branch. The letter dated 13.06.2011 would establish the appellant transferring all the original documents except the title deed to its Kailasapuram branch. It is mentioned in the letter that copy of the title deed bearing document 2930 dated 08.04.2012 was along with other original documents was transmitted to Kailasapuram branch.  The respondent after making payment of the loan amount, requested the appellant to return the documents. It appears all the documents except the title deed were returned to him.

11.                          The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant made search for the document which could not be traced. His contention is that on account of  the loss of the document, there will not be any decrease in the value of the property and the appellant is ready to issue certificate to the effect that the title deed was lost while the document was in its possession and that the Bank would also publish a notice to the effect in a newspaper.

12.                          The loss of the document would pose problems to the respondent as to availing loan from the banks other than the appellant-bank and the prospective purchasers may not come forward to pay the actual value of the property on account of the associated risk as to the source of its title. Therefore, it cannot be said with certainty that there will not be any decrease in the market value of the property. From the standpoint view of the respondent, definitely there would be change in circumstances in so far as the market value of the property is concerned. At the same time it cannot be forgotten that market value of a property would depend on several facts and various circumstances.

13.                          The respondent sought for relief as to return of the title deed and for payment of compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/-. The appellant lost the sale deed while the documents were in its custody. Therefore, the appellant is not in a position to return the sale deed to the respondent. As such, the amount awarded towards compensation has to be construed not merely the amount as sought for on that count. The amount to be awarded as compensation includes the amount for not returning the sale deed and also the amount to be granted towards mental tension suffered by the respondent. Therefore, the appellant cannot contend that the respondent sought for compensation to the extent of Rs.25,000/- and the District Forum awarded over and above the said amount.

14.                          The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the award of Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/-towards compensation is highly excessive and out of all proportions. The District Forum awarded the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for loss of the sale deed. The property as described in the sale deed is a semi-finished Flat in the third floor of the building at Chandanagar in SherillingampalliMuncipality, Ranga Reddy district.The market value of the property at the time of its purchase on 08.04.2002 was a sum ofRs.3,56,000/-. Over a decade the market value of the property might have been increased twice or thrice.While awarding compensation various parameters would play an important role in quantifying the amount.

15.                          The Hon’ble Supreme Court in  “State of Gujarath vs ShantilalMangaldas” AIR 1969 SC 634, held the compensation to mean  ”…..In ordinary parlance the expression compensation means anything given to make things equivalent; a thing given to or to make amends for loss recompense, remuneration or pay, it need not therefore necessarily in terms of money. The phraseology of the Constitutional provision also indicates that compensation need not necessarily be in terms of money because it expressly provides that the law may specify the principles on which, and the manner in which , compensation  is to be determined and given . If it were to be in terms of money along, the expression ‘paid’ would have been more appropriate”.

16.                          The Supreme Court held that the compensation to be awarded is to be fair and reasonable.  In “Charan Singh vs Healing Touch Hospital and others” 2000SAR (Civil) 935 the Apex Court stressed the need of balancing between the compensation awarded recompensing the consumer and the change it brings in the attitude of the service provider. The Court held

“While quantifying damages , consumer forums are required to make an attempt to serve ends of justice so that compensation is awarded, in an established case, which not only serves the purpose of recompensing the individual, but which also at the same time aims to bring about a qualitative change in the attitude of the service provider. Indeed calculation of damages depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be laid down for universal application. While awarding compensation, a Consumer Forum has to take into account all relevant factors and assess compensation on the basis of accepted legal principles, on moderation. It is for the Consumer Forum to grant compensation to the extent it finds it reasonable, fair and proper in the facts and circumstances of a given case according to established judicial standards where the claimant is able to establish his charge”. 

17.                                          The entire market value of the property covered under the sale deed cannot be awarded. It is not as though the respondent is left with no remedy except retaining the property. Infact the respondent has not expressed his intention to sell the property at any point of time. In view of the principle laid in the aforementioned decisions, we are inclined to reduce compensation from  the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- to  an amount of Rs.50,000/- The rest of the reliefs granted by the District Forum  would stand confirmed.

18.          In the result, the appeal is allowed modifying the order of the District Forum. The sum awarded towards compensation, Rs.6,00,000/- is reduced to an amount of Rs.3,50,000/-. The rest of the order is confirmed. There shall be no separate order as to costs. The Time for compliance four weeks.

                                                                                                                                                PRESIDENT

                                                                                                                                                MEMBER

                                                                                                                                                DATED : 22.07.2014