Justice Pritam Pal, President 1. The brief facts which led to the filing of the complaint before this Commission are epitomized as under ; That the complainant who is the Senior Partner of the firm namely M/s Precto Pipes was holding a Cash Credit Facility with the Opposite Party No. 2 under the name of his Partnership Concern for about 35 years and during the said period of time, the Opposite Party No. 2 in order to secure the said facility directed the complainant to make the deposit of the Title Deeds of the various properties in original held by the complainant, so as to enjoy the said Cash Credit Facility with the Opposite Party No. 2, which were made in good faith from time to time. Amongst others, the complainant was compelled to make the deposit of the Original Title Deeds of the Property described as: Rural Land, situated at Village Jhungian, Post Office Dayal Pura, Tehsil Derabassi, District Patiala [Now Mohali], Punjab measuring about 16 Bigha & 7 Biswas on 29.07.1982 with the Opposite Party No. 2 who had clearly communicated to the complainant at the inception of the account facility that in case the complainant would have any requirement for the said Title Deeds of the Properties as deposited with them; he could get the same released from the said Opposite Party upon an application and after substituting the value of the said deeds with Securities/Guarantees of any other kind as would be acceptable to the Opposite Party No. 2. Subsequently, the complainant requested for the release of the Title Deeds for the property described above vide his communication dated 22.07.2008 wherein the complainant sought the immediate release of the said Title Deeds as he was facing a liquidity crunch in his business and wanted to sell off the said Property to generate funds for investing in the said business, being the source of his livelihood. It was clearly stated in the said letter seeking the release of the Title Deeds of the Property that two Fixed Deposit Receipts [FDR’s] for the value of Rs. 5,00,000/- as well as Rs. 4,00,000/- each already held with the said Opposite Party No. 2 could be pressed into service, so as to cover the requirements of the Opposite Party No. 2 and to ensure that the Cash Credit Limit Facility of the complainant was also not disturbed or curtailed in any manner. A copy of the letter is annexure C-1. Thereafter, the complainant again vide his letter dated 23.07.2008 requested OP No.2 to release the original title deeds and further enclosed the Fixed Deposit Receipts in original, so that there would be no hitch in the release of the Title Deeds at the earliest. 2. It was further averred that when OP No.2 failed to do anything in the said matter till the end of July, 2008, the complainant left with no option had to get the Property described above Valuated through an approved Valuer so as to impress upon the Opposite Party No. 2 the quantum of loss that the complainant was being made to suffer due to the denial of the release of the deeds in that respect and also to show his earnest efforts in that regard. The said property was valued at above Rs. 12.75 crores which could not be put to sale or for any other such purpose in the absence of the Original Title Deeds which were not being released by the Opposite Parties for reasons best known to them. 3. It was next averred that when in the first week of August, 2008 the complainant visited OP NO.2, he was told that the Original Title Deeds of the Property had been “misplaced” and were being traced out . The complainant then wrote a letter dated 09.08.2008 to the Opposite Party No. 1 informing him about the state of affairs qua the “misplacement” of the Original Title Deeds by the Opposite Party No. 2 and also sought the release of the two FDR’s already pledged anticipating the release of the said documents; so that atleast in the meantime he could utilize the monies of the FDR’s for the participation in the PSEB, Patiala Tenders and thus bring some succor to his livelihood. OP NO.1 vide its letter dated 21.08.2008 stated that although the said Title Deeds in original had been deposited by the complainant with the Opposite Party No. 2 however the Opposite Party No. 1 was not sure as to whether the said documents were with the Opposite Party No. 2 or with the Opposite Party No. 3 and the complainant was asked to take up the matter with all the Opposite Parties. The complainant then immediately increased his efforts to seek out the Title Deeds of the Property in question from all the Opposite Parties and also in the interim prayed to the PSEB, Patiala vide his letter dated 11.09.2008, seeking a postponement of the date for the opening of the Tenders from 12.09.2008 and 15.09.2008, respectively to any future date expressing his inability to garner the Earnest Money Deposit of Rs. 10,00,000/- in the meantime. The complainant vide his letter dated 03.12.2008 requested OP NO.1 to take immediate efforts to cull out the Title Deeds and release the FDR’s in the interim period, but to no effect. The complainant then got issued a Legal Notice dated 06.04.2009 upon Opposite Parties seeking the immediate release of the Two FDR’s worth Rs. 9,00,000/- as also the Delivery of the Original Title Deeds of the Property. But OPs remained mute and did not make any efforts to seek and handover the title deeds of the property in question. Hence, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs complainant filed this complaint seeking delivery of original title deeds, interest @ 9% p.a. on the amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- being the value of the 2 FDR’s received by the Opposite Party No. 2 on 23.07.2008, interest @ 9% per annum on the amount of Rs. 12.75 crore being the Marketable Value of the Property in question as on 31.07.2008; w.e.f. 21.08.2008 till the delivery of the above stated Original Title Deeds back to the complainant besides punitive damages and costs of litigation etc. 4. OPs filed joint written reply stating therein that in the year 1982, complainant firm M/s Precto Pipes approached OP NO.3 for grant of credit facilities which was granted to the said firm after completing all the relevant and necessary formalities. In consideration of the above said credit facilities granted to the complainant, complainant firm mortgaged their immovable properties by way of equitable mortgage and original title deeds were deposited with OP NO.3. Thereafter, due to internal arrangement of OPs, loan account of complainant firm was transferred to OP NO.2 and after transferring the loan account, complainant started dealing with OP NO.2. The complainant vide his request dated 22.7.2008 approached OP No.2 for release of their original title deeds and agreed to create charge on the two FDRs amounting to Rs.5 lac and Rs.4 Lac. After receiving the request for release of original title deeds the OP NO.2 made sincere efforts to trace out the original title deeds which were deposited in the year 1982 but the same could not be traced. Ultimately the said title deeds were located as the same were lying with the OP NO.3 and vide letter dated 7.7.2009 complainant was informed to collect the original titled deeds from the office of OP NO.3 but inspite of the said communication, the complainant did not turn up to collect the original title deeds. It was further stated that immediately after receipt of the two FDRs from the complainant as security regarding the payment of the loan, the lien on the property of the complainant was deleted by the complainant and he could sell his property without the original title deed. It was pleaded that since the title deeds were deposited way back in 1982 so it took time to trace out the same and there was no deficiency in service on their part. A prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint. 5. Parties adduced evidence by way of their respective affidavits and documents. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the file. During the pendency of the complaint, on 15.12.2009 the title deed documents were delivered to the complainant. Thus, now the only question remains for consideration is with regard to the quantum of compensation to be allowed to the complainant. It is well established on the file that the complainant had been making requests time and again for the return of title deed/ documents of the property from the OPs for about one year and during this period it appears that the OPs did not make any efforts to trace out the same. It is further evident from the letter dated 7.7.2009 written by OPs that they took steps to find out the title deed documents of the complainant only after filing of this complaint which was filed on 12.5.2009. Had the officials of bank made strenuous and efficient efforts in looking out the title deed deposited by the complainant then the same would have been sent well in time. Therefore, it is established that due to inefficiency in the service of OPs, complainant had to run from pillar to post for getting his title deed/ documents and ultimately left with no option he had to file this complaint. On this count he has suffered unnecessary mental as well as physical harassment. 7. The complainant has claimed interest on the amount of FDRs @ 9% p.a. from 21.8.2008 till 21.4.2009 and further interest on Rs.12.75 crore being the market value of the property in question which he could not sell due to non-delivery of title deed/ documents. Interest payable on the FDRs is given by the bank on their maturity, so complainant is not entitled to any separate interest. Further the complainant has nowhere mentioned in the complaint that he entered into an ‘agreement to sell’ for selling his land in question with any person and the prospective buyer was insisting for the original title deeds. Even otherwise prices of the immoveable property swelled to manifold during the past boom years and still fetching that enhanced price. 8. In view of the discussion made above, although complainant is not proved to have suffered any special loss on account of non-availability of the title- deeds/ documents yet he is required to be compensated for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him. In the totality of facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, we are of the considered opinion that if the compensation of Rs.30,000/- is awarded to the complainant on account of his mental agony and physical harassment that would meet the ends of justice. Hence, we order accordingly. 9. In the result, the complaint is allowed with costs of Rs.5000/-. OPs jointly and severally are directed to pay to the complainant a total sum of Rs.35,000/-, as awarded above, within thirty days from the date copy of the order is received, failing which OPs shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% from the date of filing of complaint till its payment. Certified copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to records.
| | HON'BLE MRS. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT | , | |
