Delhi

North East

CC/60/2021

Mr. Rajesh Aggarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

25 Aug 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 60/21

 

In the matter of:

 

	Rajesh Aggarwal S/o Late Shri M.C Aggarwal R/o H No.26, Shiv Shakti Vihar, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201005	Complainant
	Versus
	State Bank of India (Through its Chief Manager) Having Branch at: 7,Local Shopping Center(Sikka Complex) B-Block, Dilshad Garden, New Delhi-110095	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                          DATE OF ORDER :

26.03.21 25.07.22 25.08.22

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

      Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 r/w Sections 2(11) of the Consumer protection Act, 2019.

 

 

Case of the Complainant

1. The facts of the case are that the Complainant took a loan of Rs. 3,00,000/-for the construction of his house. The Complainant stated that as per the requirement in terms of sanction letter the original title deeds of the property was submitted by the Complainant in the Opposite Party bank for equitable mortgage to secure the loan. It is submitted that after depositing the title deeds the Opposite Party bank did not give him the receipt. The receipt was received by the Complainant when he wrote letters to the Opposite Party bank dated 22.08.2000 and 12.12.2000. It is submitted by the Complainant that he had received a letter dated 10.05.2010 from the bank in which it was stated that the Complainant had not deposited the property deeds due to which equitable mortgage is not created and he had to submit the amount forthwith. The Complainant stated that he wrote a letter to the Opposite Party Bank dated 17.05.2010 stating that the property deeds were submitted by him at the time of getting the loan. The Complainant wrote 2 letters dated 07.07.10 and 13.09.10 to the Opposite Party bank for the confirmation of property deeds in their custody but he did not get any response from Opposite Party bank. The Complainant received two letters from the Opposite Party bank asking him to deposit the property deeds and the Complainant wrote a reply to the same and further stated that the NEC charges were being deducted from his account, if there was no property deeds then how the NEC charges were deducted from his account. The Complainant wrote a letter dated 06.05.14 for getting the copy of receipt recorded at the time of creation of equitable mortgage. The officials of Opposite Party bank denied the same and shifted the blame on him. The Complainant stated that he had repaid the total loan amount on 06.06.18 and the Opposite Party bank issue a no due certificate to him but then also title deeds of the property were not returned to him and the Complainant wrote a letter to chief manager of Opposite Party bank on 23.06.18 but same went unanswered. The Complainant stated that he had filed RTI, first appeal and also the second appeal but he did not get any satisfactory response. The Complainant send a legal notice to Opposite Party on 18.07.19. The Complainant stated that he had settled the amount on 06.06.18 but no title deeds of the property were given back to him after so many requests. Hence, this shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Party. The Complainant has prayed for that Opposite Party be directed to Re-construct the title deeds of his property and to make a publication in the newspapers regarding the loss of original title deeds. He has also prayed for a compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- for mental harassment and compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of litigation charges. 

Case of Opposite Party

2. Notice of the complaint was issued to the Opposite Party. On 03.09.21 Shri Rahul Dahiya, Asstt. Manager of Opposite Party appeared and filed authority letter. Thereafter, none appeared on behalf of Opposite Party and on 01.12.21 the Opposite Party was proceeded against Ex-parte.

Ex-parte Evidence

3. Ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit filed by the complainant wherein he has supported averments made in his complaint.

Arguments and Conclusion

4. We have heard the Complainant and have perused the file. It is the case of the Complainant that he availed a loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- from the Opposite Party bank for construction of his house. This loan was availed by the Complainant by depositing the original title deeds of his house. The case of the Complainant is that he has repaid the entire loan amount and the Opposite Party bank has not returned back his title deeds of the property. To support his contention, the Complainant filed his affidavit. The Opposite Party did not contest the complaint therefore, the assertions made by the Complainant in his affidavit and complaint have to be believed.
5. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed. It is ordered that the Opposite Party bank shall arrange the duplicate copy of the title deeds of the property of the Complainant at its own cost. This shall be so done by the Opposite Party bank within 3 months of this order. The Opposite Party shall also publish a notice in two newspapers circulated in the area of National Capital Region within 3 months of this order. The Opposite Party bank shall pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the Complainant on account of metal harassment and litigation expenses.
6. Order announced on 25.08.2022.

        Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President