STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

(Appeal No.356 of 2010)

1.                 Parveen Kumar s/o M.R. Sharma

2.                 Adarsh Kumar s/o M.R. Sharma (through his attorney Sh. Parveen Kumar)

3.                 Anil Kumar s/o M.R. Sharma (through his attorney Sh. Parveen Kumar)

All r/o H.No.400, Sector 46-A, Chandigarh

…… Appellants/Complainants.

V e r s u s

1.                 The Bank of India through its Chief Manager, SCF No.9, Near Post Office, Sector 20, Chandigarh

2.                 The Zonal Manager, Bank of India, SCO NO.181-182, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

              .... Respondents/OPs.

BEFORE:      HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                   MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

                   S.  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER.

Argued by: Sh. Aseem Kataria, Adv. for Sh. Ashish Verma, Adv. for the appellant.

                   Sh. K.P.S. Dhillon, Advocate for the respondents.

PER  JAGROOP  SINGH  MAHAL, MEMBER.

1.                           This appeal, under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainants for enhancement of the amount awarded vide order dated 12.8.2010 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) vide which the complaint filed by the complainants/appellants was allowed and the OPs/respondents were directed to pay to the complainants a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation for causing physical harassment and mental agony and Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

2.                           Briefly stated, the complainants availed a loan of Rs.3.00 lacs from OP No.1, repayable in 15 years.  In order to secure the said loan, the original Lease Deed in respect of H.No.400, Sector 46, Chandigarh, executed in the name of complainants by Chandigarh Housing Board, was mortgaged with the OP Bank.  The entire loan amount was repaid in the year 1998.  Thereafter, complainants took another loan of Rs.4.50 lacs in the year 2000-01 from OP bank and the Lease Deed of H.No.400, Sector 46, Chandigarh, already lying with OP Bank, was retained by them as security towards the new loan. Thereafter in the year 2006, the complainants approached OP Bank for paying back the entire amount of the loan and return the original lease deed, but to their shock, the OP bank misplaced the original Lease Deed due to which, the loan account was not secured up for the closing of the account in question.  In this respect, several letters were written to the OP bank, but to no avail.  Ultimately the complainants sent a legal notice to them, but in spite of that the bank failed to return the lease deed in original to the complainants and did not even provide them with an attested photocopy of the same.  It was also averred that besides the above loan amount, the complainants had the liability towards the cash credit limit.  It was further averred that the complainants wanted to repay the entire loan amounts out of the sale proceeds of the house in question so as to save the component of interest which had been paid by them but due to the above deficient and negligent act of OP bank in misplacing their original lease deed, the complainants suffered irreparable financial loss.  It was stated that when the complainants wanted to sell the house in question, its market value was Rs.3.50 Crores which was reduced to the tune of Rs.2.80 Crores, as such they suffered huge financial loss. Besides this, they also suffered physical harassment and mental agony, due to the above deficient act of OPs as the original lease deed was a very important and valuable security/document.  Hence, this complaint was filed claiming compensation of Rs.19.50 lacs towards the loss suffered by the complainants along with interest @18% p.a. from the date of filing this complaint till realization and Rs.25,000/- as cost of litigation.

3.                           OPs in their joint reply admitted the grant of loan and other amounts to the complainant from time to time.  It was submitted that the lease hold property of the complainants had already been converted into Free Hold and the lease deed became redundant and the complainants were free to sell the property and, therefore, they had not suffered any loss as alleged.  It was stated that the agreement to sell produced by the complainants was a fake, fabricated and created document.  It was further stated that the complaint was hopelessly time barred as the cause of action, if any, had arisen on 25.9.2006, when the alleged legal notice was issued by the complainants. Rest of the allegations were denied and it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.

4.                           The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 

5.                           After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint vide the impugned order dated 12.8.2010 as already mentioned in the opening para of the judgment, which has been challenged through this appeal.

6.                           We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

7.                           The short question involved in this complaint is as to what compensation should be awarded to the complainants for loss of the original lease deed by the OPs/respondents. There is no dispute about it that the complainants applied for a loan to the OPs; the original lease deed was taken from them by the OPs/bank, but they misplaced the same and did not return it to the complainants.  It is also not disputed that the premises were on lease hold basis and in the meantime, the complainants, after paying the necessary charges, got the premises converted into a free hold property.  After the property has become free hold in the hands of the complainants, the lease deed ceases to have any effect and would be irrelevant document so far as the rights of the complainants are concerned.  Even if, for any reference purpose, the complainants need the lease deed, they can get a copy of the same from the lessor i.e. the Chandigarh Housing Board.  The loss of the original lease deed, therefore, did not cause any financial or other loss to the complainants.

8.                           It has been argued by the ld. Counsel for the OPs/respondents that though the original lease deed was required for the purpose of conversion of the property from lease hold to free hold, yet the same did not cause any loss to the complainants/appellants as the conversion has since been allowed in view of the letter dated 15.2.2007 (Annexure C-7) written by them to the Estate Officer, UT, Chandigarh. As regards the amount spent by the complainants in getting the leasehold property converted into freehold, the same cannot be attributed to the loss of the lease deed.  In fact, anybody applying for the conversion is liable to deposit the said amount, whether he holds the original lease deed or the same has been lost or misplaced by him.  It is, therefore, not a case where the complainants would not have been liable to pay that much amount as charges for conversion, if they were in possession of the original lease deed. In other words, the loss of original lease deed did not put them in any financial burden. 

9.                           It is true that it was the duty of the OPs to keep the documents, which they receive from their customers, in safe custody and the OPs, by not safeguarding the original lease deed, are guilty of deficiency in service. It was also the duty of the OPs to return the said lease deed (and all other documents) received by them, from its customers/loanees, which the OPs have failed to do. The ld. District Forum in its wisdom has directed the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- for causing physical harassment and mental agony to the complainants which, in our opinion, is perfectly justified.  There is, however, no justification to increase the amount further as demanded by the complainants.

10.                       In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed, however, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

                    Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

27^th April 2011.

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Sd/-

[JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

MEMBER

hg