Order dictated by:

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member

1.       The complainant has  brought the instant complaint under section 11, 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that  the complainant was earlier working in ANZ Grindlay Bank Limited, having employee No.15076 and later on taken over by Standard Chartered Bank i.e. Opposite Party  and now the complainant has retired from his services and is drawing pension from the concerned authority of the Opposite Parties. All the time of VRS the complainant has cleared all the dues of  his housing loan, but the original sale deed  was not returned to the complainant by the Opposite Parties  while stated that due to take over by the Opposite Parties  there is some problem and by this way, the Opposite Parties  are not returning the original deed to the complainant and rather putting off the matter on one false pretext or the other and even the Opposite Parties  have also not issued No Due Certificate to the complainant inspite of repeated requests and demands by the complainant. The complainant requires the above said original sale deed as well as No Due Certificate from the Opposite Parties , but the Opposite Parties  are intentionally, wilfully and deliberately not returning the original sale deed to the complainant and also not issuing ‘No Due Certificate’  in favour of the complainant.   Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       Opposite Parties may kindly be directed to return/ hand over the original sale deed dated 3.2.1999 to the complainant and also to issue ‘No Due Certificate’  in favour of the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant for mental torture and agony caused to him. The costs of litigation may also be awarded to the complainant.

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, Opposite Parties  appeared and contested the complaint by filing  written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the  complainant has not provided the details of the loan number and is put to strict proof to prove the same with regards to the clearance of the dues related to home loan in dispute. However, the complainant has not provided any acknowledgement indicating submission of the original title deed document. Neither such particulars with regard to loan have been submitted to the bank nor placed on court record, therefore, the Opposite Party  cannot be said to be in a position to locate from the bank’s record regularly maintained.  It is to be noted that an acknowledgement receipt is provided by the Opposite Party  for such type of the acceptance of original documents. It is to be noted that the Opposite Party  had on best effort basis tried to check the records basis the employee ID provided by  the complainant despite the fact of the record retention period, however, the Opposite Party  is unable to locate any details related to the loan account or  title document. On account of considerable lapse in time, the Opposite Party  is unable to provide any details related to the loan account or title document. As per the Reserve Bank of India circular bearing reference  dated July 02, 2012, clause 2.21 (iii) the banks should maintain for at least ten years from the date of transaction between the bank and the clients, all necessary records of transactions. Moreover, the complainant had not filed single document which proves that he in past had ever followed with the Opposite Party  bank for the return of the alleged original sale deed alleged to have been deposited with the bank at the time of availing the loan. On merits,  the Opposite Party  took almost same and similar pleas as taken by them in the preliminary objections.  Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

3.       In his bid  to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence  affidavit Ex.C-1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copies of documents Ex.C2   to Ex.C7  and closed his evidence.

4.       On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Parties  tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Amandeep Aulakh Ex.OPW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.Op2 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1.

5.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.

6.       Ld.counsel for the complainant has reiterated the facts narrated in the complaint and contended that  the complainant was earlier working in ANZ Grindlay Bank Limited, having employee No.15076 and later on taken over by Standard Chartered Bank i.e. Opposite Party  and now the complainant has retired from his services and is drawing pension from the concerned authority of the Opposite Parties. All the time of VRS the complainant has cleared all the dues of  his housing loan, but the original sale deed  was not returned to the complainant by the Opposite Parties  while stated that due to take over by the Opposite Parties  there is some problem and by this way, the Opposite Parties  are not returning the original deed to the complainant and rather putting off the matter on one false pretext or the other and even the Opposite Parties  have also not issued No Due Certificate to the complainant inspite of repeated requests and demands by the complainant. The complainant requires the above said original sale deed as well as No Due Certificate from the Opposite Parties , but the Opposite Parties  are intentionally, wilfully and deliberately not returning the original sale deed to the complainant and also not issuing ‘No Due Certificate’  in favour of the complainant.

7.       On the other hand, ld.counsel for Opposite Parties  has repelled the aforesaid contentions of the ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that the complainant has not provided the details of the loan number and is put to strict proof to prove the same with regards to the clearance of the dues related to home loan in dispute. However, the complainant has not provided any acknowledgement indicating submission of the original title deed document. Neither such particulars with regard to loan have been submitted to the bank nor placed on court record, therefore, the Opposite Party  cannot be said to be in a position to locate from the bank’s record regularly maintained.  It is to be noted that an acknowledgement receipt is provided by the Opposite Party  for such type of the acceptance of original documents. It is to be noted that the Opposite Party  had on best effort basis tried to check the records basis the employee ID provided by  the complainant despite the fact of the record retention period, however, the Opposite Party  is unable to locate any details related to the loan account or  title document. On account of considerable lapse in time, the Opposite Party  is unable to provide any details related to the loan account or title document. As per the Reserve Bank of India circular bearing reference  dated July 02, 2012, clause 2.21 (iii) the banks should maintain for at least ten years from the date of transaction between the bank and the clients, all necessary records of transactions. Moreover, the complainant had not filed single document which proves that he in past had ever followed with the Opposite Party  bank for the return of the alleged original sale deed alleged to have been deposited with the bank at the time of availing the loan.

8.       The main contention of the Opposite Party  is that  Opposite Party  had on best effort basis tried to check the records basis the employee ID provided by  the complainant despite the fact of the record retention period, however, the Opposite Party  is unable to locate any details related to the loan account or  title document. On account of considerable lapse in time, the Opposite Party  is unable to provide any details related to the loan account or title document. As per the Reserve Bank of India circular bearing reference  dated July 02, 2012, clause 2.21 (iii) the banks should maintain for at least ten years from the date of transaction between the bank and the clients, all necessary records of transactions. Moreover, the complainant had not filed single document which proves that he in past had ever followed with the Opposite Party  bank for the return of the alleged original sale deed alleged to have been deposited with the bank at the time of availing the loan. But it is settled that  if anyone avail house loan against the mortgage of the property, he/ she must have deposited the original sale deed of that property and the bank has no right to sanction the house loan without keeping the original sale deed/ original documents of that property.  It is only the excuse of the Opposite Party  Bank. Furthermore, the Opposite Party  bank has submitted that the banks should maintain for at least ten years from the date of transaction between the bank and the clients, all necessary records of transactions, but in no case the bank has to weed out the original documents/ original sale deed of the client. In such a situation, it is the negligence on the part of the Opposite Party  Bank if the bank had weeded out the original sale deed/ original documents of its client. So, definitely, the Opposite Party  bank is liable to make good the loss of the complainant.

9.       In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we direct the Opposite Party  Bank to return the original sale deed/ original documents of the property of the complainant which were deposited by the complainant with Opposite Party  Bank at the time of availing the house loan or in case the original documents are  not available with the bank, then the Opposite Party  bank has to get issue the duplicate sale deed in question from the office of concerned registrar at the cost of the bank. Opposite Party  Bank is also burdened with costs which is quantified at Rs.2,000/-. Compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Parties  within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this Forum.  Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 25.04.2017.