Andhra Pradesh

Nellore

CC/11/2015

Smt Boggarapu Venkata Lakshmi Wife of Krishna Murthay - Complainant(s)

Versus

State bank of India Rep by its Manager - Opp.Party(s)

V.Gopi

04 Jul 2017

ORDER

 

Date of Filing     :12-12-2014

                                                                                                Date of Disposal:04-07-2017

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM:NELLORE

Tuesday, this the 4^th day of   JULY, 2017

 

           Present:  Sri V.C. Gunnaiah, B.Com., M.L., President (FAC)

                    Sri K. Umamaheswara Rao, M.A., B.L., Member

                      Sri M. Subbarayudu Naidu, B.Com., B.L., LL.M., Member

 

C.C.No.11/2015

Boggarapu Venkata Lakshmi,

W/o.Krishna Murthy,

Aged about 55 years,

D.No.17/1/151,

Yedlavari Street, Nellore,

SPSR Nellore District.                                                                    ..… Complainant      

                                                                           Vs.

 

State Bank of India, Town Branch, Railway Feeder Road, Represented by it’s Branch Manger Nellore.                                                                                       ..…Opposite party

                                                              .  

            This complaint coming on this day before us for hearing in the presence of                Sri Vemana Gopi, advocate for the complainant and i                                                       Sri K. Sesha Reddy, advocate for the opposite party  and having stood over for consideration till this day and this Forum made the following:

 

ORDER

                       (ORDER BY  Sri V.C. GUNNAIAH, PRESIDENT (FAC)

 

The complainant filed this complaint under Section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986  to direct the opposite party to return all  original property documents of complainant, to pay Rs.5,00,000/-  compensation to the complainant for non-return of property documents with interest at 9 percent p.a. from 20-04-1996 for mental agony, to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for loss of original documents which caused loss of  decreased value, to pay Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the complaint and such other further reliefs.

 

            2.         The averments of the complaint in brevity are that the complainant availed housing loan of Rs.1,70,000/- on 20-04-1996 from the opposite party bank by depositing original  registered sale deeds No.4770/1995 and  405/1976  and registered  G.P.A.No.337/1994.  The complainant cleared the entire loan amount with the opposite party bank  and inspite of number of personal representations and requests and legal notice dated 22-09-2010, the original  documents  are not returned by the opposite party bank.  Therefore, the complainant filed  writ petition No.27228/2010 against the opposite party bank and the Hon’ble  High Court allowed the writ petition and ordered  to issue certified copies of  sale deeds and further observed the petitioner is also  at  liberty to approach  the  appropriate   Forum in Law for claiming damages if any.   Without originals  any property  may be sold at lesser  price of 30 percent  on market value.  After filing of the writ petition,  the opposite party admitted that documents could not be traced out.  Hence, the opposite party  has to bear loss of decreased value of the  property to the complainant.   The complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-  towards compensation for loss suffered by the complainant  with gross negligence of the opposite party, she is entitled for the damages for Rs.5,00,000/- for mental agony.    Hence , the complaint for the above reliefs.

 

            3.         Opposite party filed counter on 31-07-2015 and 23-01-2017 respectively.  The opposite party denied the allegations  regarding deficiency in service on their part and gross negligence as pleaded by complainant and liable to  pay compensation for loss of property value and  mental agony as claimed by the complainant. But the opposite party admitted   the complainant availing  loan of depositing  title deeds and discharging the same and filing of writ petition No.27228/2010 by the complainant on the file of the Hon’ble High court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.  It is further  averred that after filing of the writ petition, the opposite party made serious    efforts for tracing the title deed but  could not  traced the same as the title deeds of complainant are misplaced  during the computerization and modification of ambience of the  branch.  As such,  certified copies of the registered sale deed No.4770/1995, dated 31-03-1995  and the link document for  sale deed No.2681/1976, dated 29-07-1976 was obtained by the opposite party and given to the complainant  along with the counter in the  writ petition. The bank  also obtained certified copy of the     General Power of Attorney registered as document No.337/1994, dated 15-06-1994 and the same is also given to the complainant.  Thus all the  certified copies  were given to the complainant.  The opposite party bank is also giving a certificate to the effect that the above referred original documents were misplaced in the  bank during the modification and  computerization of ambience of the bank.  Therefore, there is no problem  to the complainant to avail the  loans from the banks and other financial institutions.  So value of property is not  reduced by 30 percent  other allegations made in the complaint are not correct.  Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs as already certified copies of the misplaced documents  were furnished  to the complainant and no deficiency  of service on their part.

 

            4.         No oral evidence has been let in by the parties.  On behalf of the complainant her affidavit is filed and got marked  Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of the opposite party, affidavit of manager (PBD)  of the opposite party is filed  and got marked Exs.B1 to B3.  Both parties filed written arguments. Heard arguments on both sides and considered the written arguments filed, the documents filed and the   citations mentioned by the both parties.

 

            5.         The points that arises for determination are:

1. Whether  is there any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party as

                   pleaded by the complainant?

2. Whether  the complaint is barred by limitation?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled for  the claims? If so, to what extent from the opposite party?
4. To what relief?

 

           6.          POINT No.1;   Learned counsel  for complainant contended that the opposite party admitted the deposit of title deeds by the complainant and availing loan on 20-04-1996 and discharging the loan   and not returning the original  title deeds to her till  filing  of the complaint.  The opposite party also admitted the misplacement of title deeds and they are beyond recovery.  Hence, the same amounts to deficiency in service and gross negligence on the part of opposite party.  Therefore, the complainant proved  that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party for not  returning the documents and misplacing them and caused much mental agony, distress, loss  of property value to the complainant.

 

            7.         On other  hand, learned counsel for opposite party contended in the  writ petition No27228/2010  filed by the complainant, the opposite party clearly stated in the counter    affidavit that the documents are misplaced  during the computerization and modification of the ambience  of the branch and certified copies are supplied to the complainant and complainant’s advocate received the same.  Therefore,  the misplacement of documents beyond recovery does not amount  negligence and deficiency of service and no decreased value of property at 30 percent .  Therefore,  complainant failed to prove the  deficiency  in service,  causing loss of value of property, mental agony etc.,  Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

            8.         After going through the above   contentions, we do not see  any merit in the contention of learned counsel for  opposite party.  But we find considerable  force in the contention of learned  counsel for complainant.

 

            9.         As already noted supra, at the time of  availment of loan by the complainant from the opposite party  bank,  she deposited certain title  deeds on 20-04-1996, subsequently  she discharged the loan and demanded for return of the original documents deposited by her but the opposite party    dodged on one protest or other till 2010 and not returned the documents.  The complainant filed writ petition No.27228/2010 against the opposite party for return of the documents from the opposite party bank and in the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh by filing  counter affidavit, the opposite party admitted the original documents deposited by the complainant  were misplaced during computerization of the opposite party bank and modification of the ambience and they are beyond recovery.  So, verified certified copies of all the documents deposited by the complainant are filed.  The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, as per Ex.A1 writ petition order observed in para-4 as follows:

 

It is further  stated  that inspite of the best efforts made by the bank officials, the documents  could not be traced out, but the respondent bank authorities  have furnished the certified copies of the title deed dated 31-03-1995 vide Doc.No.4770/1995 and  the sale deed  vide Doc.No.2681/1976, dated 29-07-1976 and the said certified copies are received by the counsel for the writ petitioner.

 

            10.       Thus it is clear,  the original documents deposited by the complainant with the  opposite party bank while availing the loan were misplaced and the said documents could not be traced    and not  delivered to the complainant inspite of   she discharged the entire loan amount.  The property without original documents would certainly gets less its value in open market.  Thus in view of the clear admission of the opposite party that the original sale deeds deposited by the complainant were misplaced and they could not  be tracedout, we  are of the clear view that the same amounts to   deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the complainant in maintaining the records towards  it’s customers.  As such, we have no hesitation to hold that there is deficiency in service  proved by the complainant against the opposite party. 

Accordingly,  point No.1 is answered in favour of complainant.

 

            11.       POINT No.2:  Leaned counsel for opposite party contended that the  transaction is in the year 1996 and the loan was discharged in 2006  and the writ petition was filed in the year 2010 by the  complainant and the complaint is filed in the year 2015.  Therefore, the same is barred by limitation and complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

           12.        Per contra,  learned counsel for the complainant contended that she demanded the documents in 2006   and also filed writ petition in 2010  and  opposite party supplied certified copies of the originals and as per Ex.B2, he  gave certified  copies of   General Power of Attorney deposited on 29-07-2015 and the Hon’ble High Court observed in the writ petition to proceed against  the opposite party bank in  appropriate Forum  for claiming damages if any on 10-04-2014 and the complaint is filed on          12-12-2014.  Therefore, the complaint is filed within limitation and not barred by time.

 

            13.       After going through the contentions, we find much sufficient force in the contention of learned counsel for complainant to hold the complaint is not barred by limitation and well within time.  In this case, though the complainant discharged the loan amount by 2006 but she has been demanding for return of the documents since  then continuously.  Further, the opposite party is dodging on one protest or the other.  When  finally the complainant filed   writ petition under Ex.A1 against the opposite party  in Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh,  the opposite party returned some of the certified copies of his originals,  saying the original documents are misplaced and returned   the General Power of Attorney certified copy document on 29-07-2016 as per Ex.B2.  Further in Ex.A1  writ petition order, the Hon’ble High Court clearly observed in para-6, the petitioner is also at liberty to approach the appropriate Forum in Law for claiming the damages  if any, if so advised  on 10-04-2014.  The complainant approached this Forum on 12-12-2014 by filing this complaint for damages and other   reliefs.  Therefore viewed     in any angle, the complaint filed by the complainant cannot said  barred by limitation.  Therefore, we hold the complaint is not barred by limitation and well within time for claiming damages.  Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of complainant.

 

            14.       POINT No.3:  The complainant proved to direct the opposite party to return all original documents from the opposite party but this prayer cannot be accepted as complainant is not entitled for the same.   Since the opposite party already stated in the writ petition filed by complainant that the documents are misplaced and they could not be traced.  Therefore, the certified copies of all original documents are filed along   with the counter affidavit.  The Hon’ble  High Court  also observed in the writ petition that the documents are  misplaced and could not be traced out by the opposite party.  Therefore, certified copies are supplied and they are received by the counsel for the petitioner / complainant herein.  Since the documents are misplaced beyond recovery and they could not be traced out and certified copies  of all original documents  of complainant were supplied to him and  they were received by the counsel for the complainant in the  writ petition,  the direction  for return of all the original  documents  from the opposite party cannot be given.  Accordingly, the said prayer by the complainant is disallowed as she is not entitled for the same.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            15.       Regarding the compensations claimed by the complainant for  non-return   of   original documents  and causing mental agony, as already observed that there  is negligence on the part of opposite party in misplacing the documents  while computerization and modification of ambience of the bank and they are beyond recovery   and  could not be  traced out, the same  caused  lot of  mental agony, loss of  property value to the complainant        in the open market.  Therefore,  after considering the  submissions made by the  learned counsel   for the parties   and  taking into consideration, the citations submitted by them, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony and Rs.1,00,000/- for  decreased value  for the property  is ordered,  the same  would meet the ends of justice in this case,  apart from  awarding costs of complaint at Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.  Accordingly, the complainant entitled for the above reliefs.  Thus the point No.3 is answered in favour of complainant.                                                                                 

 

          16.         POINT No.4:  In  the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party to pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only ) to the complainant for non-return of original documents and  for causing decreased  value of property and also pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) for causing mental agony and deficiency in service to the complainant and  to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the complainant towards costs  of the complaint, within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.  Failing which, the above amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh only) shall carry interest at 9 percent p.a. till realization,. The prayer regarding return of all original property documents of complainant by the opposite party is disallowed, as certified copies of them have been already handed over to complainant.

                                                   

            Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 4th day of JULY, 2017.

 

                Sd/-                                             Sd/-                                    Sd/-

           MEMBER                                     MEMBER                      PRESIDENT(FAC)

 

                                                APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined for the complainant

 

P.W.1  -

04-11-2015

Sri Boggarapu Venkata Lakshmi, W/o.Krishna Murthy, Nellore (Chief Affidavit filed)

 

Witnesses Examined for the opposite parties

 

R.W.1  -

08-08-2016

Sri G. Jaya Babu, S/o.G. Venkata Mallappa, Manager (PBD) of State Bank of India, Nellore town Branch.(Affidavit filed)

 

                             EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT

 

Ex.A1  -	10-04-2014	Writ Petition No.27228/2010 in  the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh between complainant and opposite party.
Ex.A2  -	31-03-1995	Photostat copy of registered sale deed executed in favour of complainant.
Ex.A3  -	27-09-1976	Photostat copy of  registered sale deed between Pellakuru Kamalamma and Vesarapati Govinda Rajulu.
Ex.A4  -	15-06-1994	Photostat copy of General Power of Attorney sale deed between Pellakuru Lakshmi Narayna Reddy and Pellakuru Kamalamma, Nellore.
Ex.A5  -	22-09-2010	Photostat copy of  legal notice   from complainant’s advocate Shaik Arif Malik.

 

                         EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

Ex.B1  -	-	Attested copy of  counter affidavit  filed on behalf of the respondent bank  in the Hon’ble  High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh in  writ petition No.27228/2010.
Ex.B2  -	-	Attested copy of letter from Nellore Town Branch, Nellore Town , Nellore to the complainant.
Ex.B3  -	-	Document No.337/1994 General Power of Attorney.

 

                                                                                                                         Id/-

                                                                                                       PRESIDENT (FAC)

 

Copies to:

1.	Sri Vemana Gopi, Advocate, Room No.2, First Floor, D.No.23/919, Wahabpet, Madras Bus Stand, Nellore.
2.	Konduru Sesha Reddy, Advocate, Balaji Nagar, Nellore.

 

Date when free copy was issued: