DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No: CC/42/2022
Date of Institution: 01.02.2022
Date of Decision: 28.08.2024
Raj Rani aged about 52 years wife of Vijay Kumar resident of Street No. 2, Lakhi Colony, Barnala District Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
1. State Bank of India, SME Branch, Near Civil Hospital, Branala through its Branch Manager/Chief Manager.
2. State Bank of India, RBO Office, New Telephone Exchange Building, K.C. Road, Barnala, through RM.
3. General Manager-I, State Bank of India, 6th Floor, Local Head Office, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh (U.T.)-160017.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Present: Sh. Chander Bansal Adv counsel for complainant.
Sh. A.K. Jindal Adv counsel for opposite parties.
Quorum.-
1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover: President
2. Smt. Urmila Kumari: Member
3. Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg: Member
(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER PRESIDENT):
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against State Bank of India, SME Branch, Near Civil Hospital, Branala through its Branch Manager/Chief Manager & others (in short the opposite parties).
2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the complainant Raj Rani wife of Vijay Kumar resident of Barnala applied for a house loan and after due verification of all documents, opposite party No. 1 sanctioned a loan of Rs. 10.50 Lacs to the complainant and bank obtained number of documents, got signed on various forms and blank papers from complainant vide loan A/C No. 65235572784 & 65252991125. It is further alleged that complainant mortgage her property measuring 10.5 M being 64/1662 share of 13K 17M bearing Khata No. 348/559 Khasra No. 81//11/ 1/2/1(4-0), 11/2/2(0-13), 12/1/1(0-5), 12/2/2(0-2), 19/2(0-6), 20/1/1(1-9), 20/2/1(3-12), 82//14/2/2(0-2), 15/2(2-18) situated within the revenue limits of village Handiaya B which now falls within MC limits of Barnala situated at Evergreen Enclave Nanaksar Bye Pass Barnala vide titled deed No. 2549 dated 20.10.2014. It is further alleged that the bank marked a lien on the above said property from the office of Tehsildar/Halqa Patwari, Barnala and the complainant after obtaining the loan constructed a residential house on the above said property. The complainant paid all the loan amount alongwith interest to the bank as per terms and conditions of the bank. The bank issued a land release letter on 25.10.2021 to Tehsildar/Halqa Patwari, Barnala to redeemed the bank’s lien. It is further alleged that complainant is entitled to get her title deed No. 2549 dated 20.10.2014 alongwith other documents from the bank which were retained by the bank without any reasonable cause. The opposite parties instead of issued a NOC in regard to the above said Loan Account and issued No Due Certificate to the complainant refused to return the documents i.e. original titled deed, certified copy of title deeds, alongwith Jamabandies, valuation reports, Non Encumbrance Certificate etc. submitted at the time of availing of the above mentioned loan. The above said act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs.-
- The opposite parties may be directed to return the original titled deed, certified copy of title deeds, alongwith Jamabandies, valuation reports, Non Encumbrance Certificate etc. submitted at the time of availing of the above mentioned loan to the complainant.
- To pay an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to the complainant and Rs. 30,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties appeared and filed written version by taking legal objections on the grounds that the complainant availed the house loan from the OP Bank i.e. State Bank of Patiala, Branch Main, Barnala and she executed various loan documents in favour of the OP Bank to availed the loan in question and equitable mortgage documents also deposited by the complainant with the OP Bank. Later-on the State Bank of Patiala is merged with State Bank of India, vide notification no. GSR 159(E) dated 22-02-2017. It is further alleged that after amalgamation of the State Bank of Patiala in State Bank of India, in administrative decisions the mortgaged record along with original loan documents were shifted to the Branch of State Bank of India, Branch College Road, Barnala which was declare the Loan Hub by the State Bank of India in administrative decision and later on again in administrative decision, the OP No. 1 declare the Branch of SME Barnala and the record of the loans along with original documents again shifted to the Branch of OP No. 1 and during transit the mortgaged documents of the complainant will not found inspite of best efforts and serious checking of the records and it is possible that the mortgage loan documents file of the complainant be tagged with other loan file and it is possibility and hope that the mortgaged documents of the complainant will be found later. The complainant has got no locus-standi or cause of action to file the present complaint. The complaint of the complainant is pre-mature, as the OP never refused or declined the request of the complainant.
4. On merits, it is admitted only to the extent that the complainant Raj Rani availed the HL from the OP Bank and the complainant executed various loan documents in favour of the OP Bank. It is further submitted that after adjustment of the entire loan, the OP Bank had already given a Redeem/Land Release Letter in favour of the complainant duly addressed to the Tehsildar/Halqa Patwari, Barnala on 25.10.2021 and on the basis of this letter, the lien of the Bank had already been removed from the revenue records by the revenue authorities. It is further admitted to the extent that the OP Bank had already been issued a NOC in favour of complainant. All other allegations of the complaint are denied and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
5. The complainant filed rejoinder to version of opposite parties vide which the complainant denied the averments as mentioned in the version.
6. The complainant tendered into evidence copy of Legal Notice Ex. C-1, Copy of postal receipts Ex. C-2 to C-3, Copy of Letter dated 1.12.2021 Ex. C-4, Copy of Letter dated 30.11.2021 Ex.C-5, Land Release Letter dated 25.10.2021 Ex. C-6, Copy of Agreement to Sale dated 15.11.2021 Ex. C-7 (Containing 3 pages), Copy of Legal Notice dated 3.8.2022 Ex.C-8, Affidavit of Raj Rani dated 29.8.2022 Ex.C-9 and closed the evidence.
7. The opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Labh Singh Ex.O.Ps-1, copy of notification Ex.O.Ps-2, copy of certificate Ex.O.Ps-3, copy of certified copy of registered sale deed Ex.O.Ps-4, copy of DDR Ex.O.Ps-5, newspaper Ex.O.Ps-6 and closed the evidence.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
9. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant Raj Rani applied for a house loan and after due verification of all documents opposite party No. 1 sanctioned a loan of Rs. 10.50 Lacs to the complainant and bank obtained number of documents and got signed on various forms and blank papers from complainant vide Loan A/C No. 65235572784 & 65252991125. It is further argued that complainant mortgage her property measuring 10.5 M being 64/1662 share of 13K 17M bearing Khata No. 348/559 Khasra No. 81//11/ 1/2/1(4-0), 11/2/2(0-13), 12/1/1(0-5), 12/2/2(0-2), 19/2(0-6), 20/1/1(1-9), 20/2/1(3-12), 82//14/2/2(0-2), 15/2(2-18) situated within the revenue limits of village Handiaya which now falls within MC limits of Barnala situated at Evergreen Enclave Nanaksar Bye Pass Barnala vide titled deed No. 2549 dated 20.10.2014. It is further argued that the bank marked a lien on the above said property from the office of Tehsildar/Halqa Patwari, Barnala and the complainant after obtaining the loan constructed a residential house on the above said property. It is further argued that the complainant paid all the loan amount alongwith interest to the bank as per terms and conditions of the bank and the bank issued a land release letter dated 25.10.2021 Ex.C-6 to Tehsildar/Halqa Patwari, Barnala to redeemed the bank’s lien. It is further argued that complainant is entitled to get her title deed No. 2549 dated 20.10.2014 alongwith other documents from the bank which were retained by the bank without any reasonable cause but the opposite parties instead of issued a NOC in regard to the above said Loan Account and issued No Due Certificate to the complainant refused to return the documents i.e. original titled deed, certified copy of title deeds, alongwith Jamabandies, valuation reports, Non Encumbrance Certificate etc. submitted at the time of availing of the above mentioned loan. Ld. Counsel for the complainant further argued that without the Title Deed of the property nobody will pay the adequate value of the property. Ld. Counsel for the complainant further argued that the complainant was ready to execute/sale deed of the said property in favour of Sh. Jaswant Dhaliwal son of Sh. Gurcharan Singh resident of Barnala and this fact is proved from Ex.C-7 vide which the complainant has executed an agreement for the sale of above said property.
10. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for opposite parties argued that after amalgamation of the State Bank of Patiala in State Bank of India, in administrative decisions the mortgaged record along with original loan documents were shifted to the Branch of State Bank of India, Branch College Road, Barnala which was declare the Loan Hub by the State Bank of India in administrative decision and later on again in administrative decision, the OP No. 1 declare the Branch of SME Barnala and the record of the loans along with original documents again shifted to the Branch of OP No. 1 and during transit the mortgaged documents of the complainant will not found inspite of best efforts and serious checking of the records and it is possible that the mortgage loan documents file of the complainant be tagged with other loan file. It is further argued that after adjustment of the entire loan the OP Bank had already given a Redeem/Land Release Letter in favour of the complainant duly addressed to the Tehsildar/Halqa Patwari, Barnala on 25.10.2021 and on the basis of this letter, the lien of the Bank had already been removed from the revenue records by the revenue authorities.
11. We have gone through the entire facts of the present case and evidence produced by both the parties. It is admitted case of the opposite parties that the complainant availed the house loan from the OP Bank i.e. State Bank of Patiala, Branch Main, Barnala and she executed various loan documents in favour of the OP Bank to availed the loan in question and equitable mortgage documents also deposited by the complainant with the OP Bank. It is further admitted case of the opposite parties that after amalgamation of the State Bank of Patiala in State Bank of India, in administrative decisions the mortgaged record along with original loan documents were shifted to the Branch of State Bank of India, Branch College Road, Barnala which was declare the Loan Hub by the State Bank of India in administrative decision and later on again in administrative decision, the OP No. 1 declare the Branch of SME Barnala and the record of the loans along with original documents again shifted to the Branch of OP No. 1 and during transit the mortgaged documents of the complainant will not found inspite of best efforts and serious checking of the records and it is possible that the mortgage loan documents file of the complainant be tagged with other loan file. Moreover, the opposite parties have placed on record copy of DDR dated 6.9.2023 Ex.O.Ps-5 which was registered by the opposite parties vide which it is mentioned that “during transit in the Bank premises, a sale deed No. 2549 dated 20.10.2014 in the name of Smt. Raj Rani wife of Shri Vijay Kumar resident of Lakhi Colony, Barnala has been lost”. So, from this document it is established that the above said sale deed of the complainant has been lost due to the negligence of the opposite parties. Further, Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the above said sale deed alongwith documents which were lying in the safe custody of the bank and the bank officials are bound to make security arrangements for the safeguard of the above documents, but they have failed to make securities for the safeguard of the valuable documents of the Public.
12. The opposite parties have produced in their evidence newspaper cuttings dated 13.9.2023 as Ex.OPs-6 in which the opposite parties got mentioned that the original registered sale deed No. 2549 dated 20.10.2014 executed in favour of Smt. Raj Rani wife of Sh. Vijay Kumar was equitably mortgaged and deposited with the bank for availing house loan vide account No. 65235572784 and 65252991125 is not traceable. On the perusal of the above said news papers cuttings and DDR it is established that the opposite parties registered the DDR on 6.9.2023 and published the information to the general public in the newspaper on 13.9.2023. But the complainant has approached the opposite parties for getting the above said sale deed and other documents from the opposite parties on 15.11.2021 as the complainant has paid the entire loan amount and the opposite parties have also issued a land release letter dated 25.10.2021 Ex.C-6 to Tehsildar/Halqa Patwari, Barnala to redeem the bank’s lien. However, the opposite parties have produced the certified copy of registered sale deed No. 2549 dated 20.10.2014 as Ex.O.Ps-4 which is in favour of the Raj Rani wife of Sh. Vijay Kumar resident of Lakhi Colony, Barnala and which is of dated 29.9.2023. So, from the above said facts it established that the opposite parties have taken the steps to find out the original sale deed and other documents after a gap of almost two years and due to which the complainant has suffered a lot of mental agony, harassment as well as financial loss which is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.
13. Ld. Counsel for the complainant relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No. 2708 of 2015 against Order dated 16.7.2015 in Appeal No. 1346 of 2011 decided on 2.5.2017 in case titled Bank of Baroda &Anr. Vs Rubia International Export Industries vide which the Hon’ble National Commission held that “There has been deficiency in service on part of petitioner/bank as they have lost original papers relating to property, relating to complainant. Though, the certified copies of these documents have been supplied by the bank, still the certified copies cannot replace the original documents”. The similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory in Appeal No. 356 of 2010 decided on 27.4.2011 in case titled Parveen Kumar & Ors. Vs Bank of India & Anr.
14. In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of compensation for causing mental torture, agony and harassment suffered by the complainant and Rs. 15,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:
28th Day of August, 2024
(Ashish Kumar Grover)
President
(Urmila Kumari)
Member
(Navdeep Kumar Garg)
Member
