Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/106/2014

Lakshmi Narasimhan Komandur - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjay Pinto

21 Oct 2016

ORDER

                                                                           Date of Complaint  : 12.02.2014

                                                                 Date of Order         : 21.10.2016

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT :    THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM, M.A.M.L.,               :  PRESIDENT                     

                     TMT.K. AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                             :  MEMBER – I

             DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

                                                     

C.C.No. 106/ 2014

THIS FRIDAY  21^ST  DAY OF OCTOBER 2016

Lakshminarasimhan Komandur,

C-1, Abhinav Gardens,

89, Velachery Road,

Saidapet,

Chennai 600 015.

Tamil Nadu.                                                   .. Complainant.

                                                         -Vs-

1. The State Bank of India, Rep. by its Chairperson, Corporate Centre, State Bank Bhawan, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai 400 021.     2.  The State Bank of India, Rep. by its Chief General Manager, 16, College Lane, Chennai 600 006.     3. State Bank of India, Rep. by its Assistant General Manager, Retail Assets Central Processing Centre, New No.4/952 & 952-A 3rd Floor, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Perungudi, Chennai 600 096. 4. State Bank of India, Rep. by its Assistant General Manager, Retail Assets Central Processing Centre, Old No.103-A New No.157, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.   5. State Bank of India, Rep. by its Assistant General Manager, Retail Assets Central Processing Centre, 16, Whannels Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008.   6. State Bank of India, Rep. by its Assistant General Manager, Adyar Branch, 5, First Cross Street, Kasturba Nagar, Adyar, Chennai 600 020.                                       .. Opposite parties.

 

For the complainant             :    M/s. Sanjay Pinto           

For the opposite parties        :   M/s. M.L.Ganesh & S.Arun Kumar.    

ORDER

THIRUMATHI.K.AMALA,   ::    MEMBER-I

Complaint under section 12  of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The complaint is filed seeking direction against  the opposite parties  to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for gross deficiency in service, mental agony, and also to issue indemnity bond for any damage arising out the loss of the original title deeds, file a fresh FIR with the police and obtain a non traceable certificate, locate the other four original documents and arrange for certified copies of the same and to pay the cost of the complaint.

1.The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:-  

 

          The complainant had stated that he availed the Home loan for housing construction for a sum of Rs.24,00,000/- from the 6^th opposite party which was sanctioned on 7^th June 2011 for which he handed over the original documents of his own property as collateral Security at the office of the 4^th opposite party.   The complainant handed over the original documents of the  title deed, patta, CMDA planning  permit approval,  Approved Building plan, CMDA layout approval.  The complainant also executed a Memorandum of deposit of title deeds which was registered at Sub Registrar’s office, Padappai.   The opposite party failed to issue proper receipt for furnishing original documents.  The complainant promptly repaid all the monthly installments and also pre-closed the loan in just two years and four months.   The 6^th opposite party had acknowledged full recovery of the loan with upto date interest vide letter dated 12^th October 2013.   But the opposite parties failed to return the original property title deeds and other original documents.  After countless visits, telephone calls, and letters to senior officials of the opposite parties, after an inordinate delay of 45 days the 3^rd  opposite  party  stated vide letter dated 27^th November 2013  that at the time of migration of the complainant’s loan account to the branch of the 3^rd opposite party the complainant’s original documents were not received by the 3^rd opposite party and they were unable to trace the said documents. 

2.     The complainant further stated that he was shocked at the  reckless attitude of the opposite parties and filed a complaint before the Banking Ombudsman.   But they rejected the complaint and directed to approach the forum for redressal of his grievance.    The complainant stated that the opposite party arranged to issue certified copies of the original title deeds but they kept silent regarding the rest of the original documents.   Hence the complainant requested to issue an indemnity bond to cover any loss on account of their carelessness and negligence.  But they failed to issue indemnity bond and also not filed any complaint with police.  But the opposite parties have casually deposited a sum of Rs.5,000/- in his savings bank account as compensation for the loss of original documents.   The above act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service due to which he and his family members suffered stress and mental agony.   Moreover without the original documents selling of the property would not fetch the same price and it would be hit upto 25% of the market value.  Hence the complainant filed the above complaint claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for gross deficiency in service, mental agony, to direct the opposite parties to issue indemnity bond for any damage arising out the loss of the original title deeds, file a fresh FIR with the police and obtain a non traceable certificate, locate the other four original documents and arrange for certified copies of the same. 

Written Version of  opposite parties are  in briefly as follows:

3.     The opposite parties denies all the allegation made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The opposite parties states that the complainant availed the Home loan for Rs.24,00,000/- by depositing their original title deed as security.    The opposite parties denies the allegation that they failed to issue a proper receipt, but the complainant himself had executed a Memorandum of deposit of title deeds on 9.6.2011 registered at Sub Registrar Office Padaippai.   Wherein it is specifically mentioned that the documents as stated in schedule “A” pertaining to the schedule “B” property deposited with opposite parties.  Hence the contention is highly derogatory in nature.  The opposite parties also denied the allegation that the complainant has been driven from pillar to post and caused mental agony.   Since the original title deeds are not traceable they have obtained the certified copy of the sale deed of the complainant and his vendors to supplement the original title deeds and also effected publication in Dinamani and Indian Express informing the General Public about the misplacement of the documents.  Since there was no objection from the General Public No Claim Certificate, latest EC, was kept ready and informed to the complainant. But the complainant had insisted only for delivery of original title deeds and not certified copy.    Therefore the complainant SB account was credited with Rs.5,000/- on 24.1.2014 as compensation as per the banks compensation policy.   Therefore in light of the above said facts the above case may be dismissed with exemplary cost and devoid of facts.

4.   Complainant has filed his Proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to Ex.A31 were marked on the side of the complainant.   Proof affidavit of  opposite parties filed and Ex.B1 to Ex.B6 were marked on the side of the opposite parties. 

5.      The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-

1.   Whether the opposite parties had committed  deficiency of

 service as alleged in the complaint?

 

2.   Whether the complainant is  entitled for the relief sought for

in the complaint?  If so to what extent ?

 

 

6.    POINTS 1 and 2 :

Perused the complaint filed by the complainant, written version filed by the opposite parties and the proof affidavits filed by complainant and opposite parties the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A31 filed on the side of the complainant and Ex.B1 to Ex.B6 filed on the side of opposite parties and considered the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the complainant and for the opposite parties.

7.     It is not disputed by the opposite parties that the complainant had availed the housing loan of Rs.24,00,000/- from the opposite parties and also executed Home loan agreement i.e. Ex.A1 and also repaid the entire loan amount within two years and four months for which the opposite party had also issued a letter confirming loan repayment dated 12.10.2013. i.e. Ex.A4.

8.     Whereas the grievance of the complainant is that the opposite parties failed to issue a receipt for deposit of original title deed, though he paid the loan amount fully within two years and four months the opposite parties failed to return the original title deeds and other documents, after several phone calls and letters to officials after delay of more than 45 days the 3^rd opposite party sent a letter dated 27.11.2013 declaring that the original documents were not traceable.    Due to which he would incur 25% loss of market value in the property when he intend to sell the property, the opposite party also not lodged any complaint for loss of documents on the other hand the opposite party simply deposited a meager amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation  for loss of original title deed whereas kept silent about the issuance of certified copies of other documents.   Hence the complainant filed the above complaint to direct the opposite parties to pay a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- towards deficiency in service, to file a fresh FIR with the police and obtain a non traceable certificate, locate the other four original documents and arrange for certified copies of the same. 

9.     Whereas the opposite parties resisted the complaint by stating that the complainant availed the Home loan for Rs.24,00,000/- by depositing their original title deed as security and  they also issued a receipt, but the complainant himself had executed a Memorandum of deposit of title deeds on 9.6.2011 registered as SRO Padaippai, wherein it is specifically mentioned that the documents as stated in schedule “A” pertaining to the schedule “B” property deposited with opposite parties.  Hence the contention is highly derogatory in nature.    Since the original title deeds are not traceable they have obtained the certified copy of the sale deed of the complainant and his vendors to supplement the original title deeds and also effected publication in Dinamani and Indian Express informing the General Public about the misplacement of the documents .  Since there was no objection from the General Public No Claim Certificate, latest EC, was kept ready and informed to the complainant. But the complainant had insisted the only for delivery of original title deeds and not certified copy.   Therefore the complainant SB account was credited with Rs.5,000/- on 24.1.2014 as compensation as per the banks compensation policy.   Therefore there is no deficiency of service on their part and prayed to dismiss the complaint.  

10.    With respect of the grievance raised by the complainant that the opposite party had not issued any receipt for deposit of title deeds, on perusal of Ex.A3 it reveals that the complainant had executed a memorandum of title deeds in favour of State Bank of India, and  registered at SRO Padappai which is also not denied by the opposite parties.   Further the opposite parties had also acknowledged the receipt of the original complaint mentioned as per Ex.A2.

11.    The main grievance of the complainant is that the opposite parties lost the original title deeds of his property and informed vide letter dated 27.11.2013 that the original documents were not traceable after more than 45 days but simply deposited a meager amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation.    It is evidenced from the letters sent by the complainant to the officials of the opposite parties that the complainant had requested the opposite parties to return the original title deed and other original documents deposited with the opposite parties.  Once the loan account is fully paid the opposite parties are duty bound to return the original documents deposited with them as security whereas it is found that the opposite parties have stated due to migration of the branch office the original documents could not be traced which is not sustainable and also not acceptable but shows their negligence.   It is also found that the opposite parties themselves shift the blame between themselves for loss of the original documents.   However it is found from Exs.B1,  Ex.B2, Ex.B3, and Ex.B4 that the opposite parties had made publication in daily newspapers and also issued no claim certificate through their advocate and also obtained a certified copy of the sale deed document and compensation of Rs.5,000/- which is not justifiable.   The opposite party also stated that they had deposited a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation policy which is also denied by the complainant.   However the above effort taken by the opposite parties could not compensate the monitory loss and mental suffering of the complainant.  After losing the original title deed and other documents the opposite parties simply cannot wash their hands by issuing certified copy of the title deed, by depositing a meager amount of Rs.5,000/-.  The above act show their negligence and also amounts to deficiency in service as such the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant for their negligent act.

12.    The complainant also raised grievance that due to the loss of original title deed there would be great difficulty in obtaining loan from other banks for which he relied on the opinion received through RTI from the other banks i.e. Ex.A29 and Ex.A31.   On perusing the said documents we are of the opinion that even though the opposite parties issue certified copies of the original title deed the complainant may face certain difficulty in future without the original title deed.    

13.    With respect of the grievance raised by the complainant that    the opposite parties had not issued certified copies of the other original documents namely patta, CMDA planning permit approval, approved building plan, CMDA layout approval and seeking direction to locate the said original documents we are of the considered opinion that since the opposite parties themselves admitted that the said documents were lost and not traceable the complainant himself can get the certified copies of the other documents namely patta, plan approval etc. at his own expenses. 

14.    However the complainant grievance that the opposite party had not issued indemnity bond to cover any loss on account of their carelessness and negligence is acceptable.   The opposite party ought to have issued an indemnity bond for the loss of original title deed but they failed to do so which also shows their deficiency in service.   Hence the opposite parties are also directed to trace the original title deed and hand it over to the complainant or  issue a certificate  for the loss of complaint mentioned  original title deed dated 10.10.2002 which has been obtained as security with an undertaking for the responsibility for the claim if any arise in respect of the said original title deed to the complainant.  With respect of the claim of direction to file FIR with police and obtained non-tractable certificate the above direction itself is justifiable.    

15.    Therefore considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the considered opinion that the opposite party had committed deficiency in service and they are liable to compensate the complainant for the loss of original title deeds and other documents.   As such the opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- as compensation and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.  With respect of compensation since the opposite parties had stated that they had deposited a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation policy in the savings bank account of the complainant and the same was also not denied by the complainant after deducting a sum of Rs.5,000/- which was already credited in the savings bank account of the complainant the opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay the balance compensation amount of Rs.35,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 27.11.2013 to till the date of payment to the complainant and accordingly the points 1 & 2 are answered. 

In the result the complaint is partly allowed.  The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to trace the original title deed and hand it over to the complainant or  issue a certificate for the loss of complaint mentioned original title deed dated 10.10.2002 which has been obtained as security for housing loan with an undertaking for the responsibility for the claim if any arise in respect of the said original title deed to the complainant, and   also to pay a sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty five thousand only) as balance compensation with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 27.11.2013 to till the date of payment and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/-  (Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expense to the complainant within six weeks from the date of this order.

                Dictated directly by the Member-I to the Assistant and computerized by her, corrected by the Member-I and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this 21^st   day of  October   2016.

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1- 4.6.2011    - Copy of Home loan agreement.

Ex.A2- 7.6.2011    - Copy of Rough receipt Note.

Ex.A3- 9.6.2011    - Copy of Memorandum of deposit of title deed.

Ex.A4- 12.10.2013         - Copy of letter confirming loan repayment.

Ex.A5- 5.10.13 to  - Copy itemized telephone bills showing underlined calls

           4.2.2014    - to opposite parties.

 

Ex.A6- 29.10.2013         - Copy of letter to 6^th opposite party on non return of

                              Original documents after loan repayment.

 

Ex.A7- 11.11.2013 – Copy of letter to DGM 2 on Non return of original

                               Documents after loan repayment.

 

Ex.A8- 11.11.2013 – Copy of letter to GM Network I on non return of original

                               Document after loan repayment.

 

Ex.A9- 21.11.2013 – Copy of letter to 1^st opposite party on non return of original

                               Document after loan repayment.

 

Ex.A10-29.11.2013 – Copy of letter to 1^st opposite party on non return of

                                original document after loan repayment.

 

Ex.A11- 5.11.2013         -  Copy of doctor’s prescription & Notes.

 

Ex.A12- 27.11.2013- Copy of letter from 3^rd opposite party declaring that

                               Original documents were not traceable.

 

Ex.A13- 27.12.2013 – Copy of Public Notice in New Indian Express.

 

Ex.A14- 27.12.2013 – Copy of Public Notice in Dinamani.

Ex.A15- 30.12.2013 – Copy of Doctor’s prescription.

Ex.A16- 31.12.2013  - Copy of medical test results.

Ex.A17- 31.12.2013  - Copy of Diagnostic Centre receipt.

Ex.A18- 31.12.2013  - Copy  of  Doctor’s Diagnostic report notes.

Ex.A19- 2.1.2014    - Copy of letter seeking Holistic search.

Ex.A20- 10.1.2014    - Copy of complaint to Banking Ombudsman.

Ex.A21- 11.1.2014    - Copy of RTI Application.

Ex.A22- 23.1.2014    - Copy of RTI Application.

 

Ex.A23- 27.1.2014            - Copy of RTI application seeking source of credit entry in

                                  SB account.

 

Ex.A24- 1.2.2014  - Copy of response from 6^th opposite party to RTI application

                              on source of Credit entry.

 

Ex.A25- 29.1.2014 – Copy of letter  to 3^rd opposite party seeking FIR, indemnity

                               Bond etc.

 

Ex.A26- 5.2.2014 - Copy of letter from Local Head office forwarding RTI

                             application to 6^th opposite party.

 

Ex.A27- 24.4.2014         - Copy of reply from banking Ombudsman.

 

Ex.A28- 18.2.2014         - Copy of RTI application.

 

Ex.A29- 27.2.2014         - Copy of response to RTI query from State Bank of Mysore.

 

Ex.A30- 18.2.2014 – Copy of RTI application.

 

Ex.A31- 17.3.2014         - Copy of response to RTI query from I.O.B.

 

 

Opposite parties’ Exhibits:- 

 

Ex.B1-  27.12.2013 – Copy of publication made in English daily New

                                Indian Express.    

Ex.B2- 27.12.2013 – Copy of publication made in Tamil daily “Dhinamani”.

 

Ex.B3- 13.1.2014   - Copy of No claim certificate issued by Advocate for

                               Opposite parties.

 

Ex.B4- 23.1.2014   - Copy of letter of undertaking issued by SBI, RACPC,

                               OMR.

 

Ex.B5- 25.1.2014   - Copy of letter given by advocate for SBI.

 

Ex.B6-     -           - Copy of attested certified copies of the documents.

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.