Date of filing:06.03.2021

                                                              Date of Disposal:06.12.2022

BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                               BENGALURU – 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 06^th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.247/2021

PRESENT:

SRI.RAJU K.S,

SMT.REKHA SAYANNAVAR,:MEMBER

Sri K.R.Amarnath

S/o Kota Raghupathi Chetty

Aged about 65 years

Presently residing at 797,

JP Nagar IInd Phase

Bangalore 560 078

Ph:9980934810 9845006636…COMPLAINANT

(Rep by Sri.N. Manjunath Reddy, Adv.)

The Authorised officer

IDBI Bank Ltd.,

CPU-RAO, Annex Building,

Plot No.39/40/41, Sector 11,

CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai 400 614

Having its branch at No.26/1,

Saubhagya Complex, 24^th Main Road

Bengaluru, Karnataka 560 078.…OPPOSITE PARTY

(Opposite Parties Sri.TP Muthanna, Adv.)

//JUDGEMENT//

BY SRI.SHIVARAMA K. PRESIDENT

This complaint is filed under Section-35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the Opposite Party for a direction to the Opposite party to declare that the act of destruction of documents which was in its custody amounts to deficiency of service and award compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- and to pay cost and to given an advertisement in a local newspaper regarding the destruction of original deeds of the schedule property at its cost and to fix responsibility on Opposite party of obtaining certified copiesof the title deeds in respect of the schedule property from the Government office and such other reliefs as this Commission deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

2. It is not in dispute that the complainant has approached the Opposite party bank for a loan in order to construct a house by mortgaging the property and complainant had deposited possession certificate/ memo dated 11.05.1997, sale deed dated 13.07.1988, encumbrance certificate, Khatha certificate, Khatha extract with Opposite party. Further it is not in dispute that in the year 2019 the complainant received a letter from the opposite party intimating that all the original documents pertaining to the schedule property deposited by the complainant with the opposite party bank were destroyed by fire. Further it is not in dispute that Opposite party bank along with letter dated 15.10.2019  has also sent English version of incident spot panchanama dated 26.12.2017.  Further complainant has issued legal notice dated 11.09.2020  demanding liquidated damages of Rs. 10,00,000/- from Opposite party bank and to bear cost of advertisement in local newspaper with regard to the destruction of original title deeds of the property.

3.      It is the further case of the complainant that in order to meet the domestic needs for more funds, the complainant approached Sreenidhi Souharda Sahakari Bank Niyamitha  and had submitted the application along with copy of the title documents of schedule property and the complainant in all remitted Rs.10,250/- in favour of the bank towards membership and legal opinion.  The penal advocate  had furnished the opinion dated 01.10.2020 stating that since the original documents of the title of schedule property were not either in the custody of complainant or IDBI Bank was unable to form opinion.  On receipt of the said opinion the bank by its communication has informed its inability to sanction the loan in favour of the complainant. Hence the complaint came to be filed.

4.      It is the further case of the Opposite party that it would bear the cost and expenses etc., but in fact only two documents viz; possession certificate dated 11.05.1977 and khatha certificate was affected by the water used to douse the fire and all other documents are in the bank. Complainant did not respond to the request of the bank rather filed the present complaint. Further the storage of documents by Opposite party bank is centralized at Mumbai and original documents, title deeds etc., of Opposite party bank customers including the documents of the complainant was stored with Opposite party bank custodian “Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd (SHCIL)”, located at Mumbai. Further khatha extract issued by BBMP and Memo/possession certificate dated 11.05.1979 issued by City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore, other documents are intact and the above said two documents partially impacted  by the water used to douse the fire.  Hence Opposite party informed the complainant vide email dated 28.02.2020 regarding the recreation of documents. Hence without considering practical difficulty of the bank, the complainant has filed false case.

5. To prove the case the complainant has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief and got marked Ex. P1 to P7 documents. The Assistant General Manager of Opposite party company (RW-1) has filed affidavit in the form of its evidence in chief and got marked Ex.R1 to R8 documents.

6.  Counsels for both the parties have filed written arguments.

7. On the basis of the pleading and documents, the points that would arise for consideration are as under:

i) Whether the complainant proves the deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?

ii) Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought in the complaint?

iii) What order?   

   8.   Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :  In affirmative.

Point No.2 :  Partly in affirmative.

Point No.3 :  As per the final order for the following;

REASONS

  9. POINT NO.1:- PW-1 and RW-1 have reiterated the fact stated in their respective pleadings in the affidavits  filed in the form of their evidence in chief.  There is no dispute with regard  to the deposit of five title documents by the complainant with the opposite party. The Opposite party has produced copies of sale deed vide Ex.R1, encumbrance certificates for the period from 01.04.2004 to 15.07.2016 and  01.04.1987 to 31.05.1989 vide Ex. P2 and R3, and Khatha extract at Ex R5 and Khatha certificate Ex R6. The Opposite party was not able to secure the khatha certificate and possession certificate dated11.05.1979. There is missing of vital documents in respect of the immovable property. It is the bank to keep the documents in safe custody and because of the fire those two documents were mutilated. Hence there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. Accordingly, we answer Point No.1 in affirmative.  

10.  POINT No.2:- It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Opposite party that he had informed over its email dated 28.02.2020 about the recreation of documents.  Further there is an outstanding liability of Rs.13,56,836/- under the mortgage loan account of the complainant. Fire accident took place on 11.12.2017 and the complainant was informed on 28.02.2020. Further it is contended in the written arguments by the learned counsel for the Opposite party that the sale deed, Encumbrance Certificate, Katha Extract are intact and it is only Khatha certificate dated 01.02.2002 issued by BBMP and memo/possession certificate dated 11.05.1979 issued by the office of the City Improvement Trust board, Bangalore were partially impacted by the water used to douse the fire.  Hence, it is directed to the opposite party to produce the available documents before the commission for the confirmation by the complainant that the documents asserted by the Opposite party are in safe.  Further for the documents lost the Opposite party has to pay compensation. With regard to the compensation is concerned counsel for complainant has relied judgment rendered by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi in Revision Petition. Between State Bank of India  and 2 others Vs Darshan Lal on 28.01.2016.  The facts in the said case is that the complainant took loan from  the Opposite party bank by depositing the sale deeds and the bank has lost the sale deed dated 06.10.1986.  Under the circumstances, the Hon’ble Commission has directed the bank to give advertisement to at its own cost and to pay a sum Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant.  In the case on hand, the bank has disfigured two documents i.e. Khatha certificate and possession certificate dated 11.05.1979 and it is the contention that those documents are partially impacted by the water used to douse the fire. These two documents are also important one and it would be a serious matter and the complainant expected that bank would keep the documents in safe custody and there is no chance of documents getting lost or misplaced or mutilated. Hence we direct the Opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards inconvenience and harassment caused to the complainant and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost. Accordingly we answer this point Partly in affirmative.

11.  POINT NO.3:- In view of the discussion made above, we proceed to pass the following;

The complaint is allowed in part.

The Opposite party shall give advertisement at its cost in two vernacular daily newspaper widely circulated in Karnataka State stating that the possession certificate dated 11.05.1977 issued by the office of CITB Bangalore and Khatha certificate  issued by BBMP, Bangalore in respect of the property in site bearing No.797, stands in the name of K.R. Amaranath situated at Sarakki II Phase, Extension measuring East to West 9.14 meters and North to South 12.19 meters totally measuring 1200 sq. feet deposited with the bank by him on 01.02.2002 has gone mutilated because of fire while it was in the custody of IDBI Bank and the complainant can obtain certified copy of those documents from the concerned office.

Further the Opposite party shall pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost.

Further the opposite party bank shall produce original sale deed dated 13.07.1988, encumbrance certificate, khatha extract before this commission for the confirmation of the complainant and can keep those documents as per the conditions stipulated in the mortgage deed.

The Opposite party shall comply the order within 30 days. In case, opposite parties fail to comply the order within the said period, the above said amount i.e. Rs.60,000/- carries interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of order till realization.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties and return extra copies of the pleading and evidence to the parties.

Applications pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

  (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by him, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced in the open Commission on 06^th day of December, 2022)                                            

• REKHA SAYANNAVAR)    (RAJU K.S)         (SHIVARAMA. K)    

   MEMBER                MEMBER              PRESIDENT                        

//ANNEXURE//

Witness examined for the complainants side:

Sri. KR Amaranath, (PW-1) who being the

complainant has filed his affidavit.

Documents marked for the complainant side:

1. Copy of the account ledger report of complainant.
2. Letter of Opposite party dt.15.10.2019.
3. Legal notice of complainant.
4. Legal opinion dt:01.10.2020.
5. Letter of opposite party dt:08.10.2020.
6. Copy of the affidavit one Mr.Chandrashekarappa.
7. Postal track consignment.

Witness examined for the opposite party side:                  

 Sri.S Sivikumar, Asst. General Manager of Opposite party has filed his affidavit.

Documents marked for the opposite parties side:

1. Copy of the absolute sale deed dt.13.07.1988.
2. Copies of the encumbrance certificate (3 in number).
3. Copy of the khatha certificate extract dt.18.05.2016.
4. Copy of the certificate with memo of possession.
5. Certificate u/s 65(b) of Indian Evidence Act.
6. Email communications

• REKHA SAYANNAVAR)    (RAJU K.S)         (SHIVARAMA. K)    
•  
•