BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

1]        Parveen Kumar Sharma son of Sh.M.R.Sharma,

2]        Adarsh Kumar Sharma son of Sh.M.R.Sharma, (through his attorney Sh.Parveen Kumar)

3]     Anil Kumar Sharma son of Sh.M.R.Sharma, (through his attorney Sh.Parveen Kumar),

        All residents of H.No.400, Sector 46-A, Chandigarh.

….…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.

                                        ..…Opposite Parties

CORAM:          SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA                         PRESIDENT

                    SH.ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI            MEMBER

                    MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA                        MEMBER

PRESENT:     Sh.Ashish Sharma, Adv. for the complainant.

Sh.Inder Singh and Sh.Neelam Singh, Advocates for the OPs.

PER SHRI ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI, MEMBER

               Succinctly put, 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 amount, 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 2000-2001 from OP bank and the Lease Deed of H.No.400, Sec. 46, Chandigarh already lying with OP Bank was retained by them as security towards the new loan. Then the complainants in the year 2006 approached OP Bank and requested them to receive all due amount of the loan and return the original lease deed but to the shock of complainants, the OP bank misplaced the original Lease Deed of the complainant, as a result, the loan account was not secured up for the closing of the account in question.  Several letters were written to the OP bank in this respect but to no avail.  Ultimately a legal notice was sent to them but inspite of that the bank failed to show the lease deed in original to the complainants and did not even provide them with an attested photocopy of the same.  It is averred that H.No.400, Sec. 46, Chandigarh has the market value of Rs.3.50 Crores nowadays. It is also averred that beside the above loan amount, the complainants have the liability towards the cash credit limit.  It is 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 has been paid by them but due to the above deficient & negligent act of OP bank of misplacing their original lease deed, the complainants have suffered irreparable financial loss.  It is stated that when the complainants wanted to sell the house in question, its market value was Rs.3.50 Crores which has now been 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 has been 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.

2]             OPs filed joint reply and admitted the grant of loan and other amounts to the complainant from time to time.  It is submitted that the lease hold property of the complainants has already been converted into Free Hold and since the property has already been converted into Free Hold, the lease deed became redundant and the complainants were free to ;sell the property. Therefore, they have not suffered any sort of loss as being alleged.  It is also stated that the agreement to sell produced by the complainants is a fake, fabricated and created document.  It is further stated that the complainant is 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 have been denied and it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.

3]             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]             We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 

5]             The basic facts of the case in respect of the complainants having availed a loan of Rs.3.00 lacs from Op No.1 repayable in 15 years and that in order to secure the said loan amount, the complainants deposited the original Lease deed in respect of H.No.400, Sector 46, Chandigarh by way of mortgage with the OP Bank, have all been admitted

6]             It is also a fact that the entire loan amount was repaid by the complainants to the OPs in the year 1998. Thereafter, the complainants raised another loan of Rs.4.50 lacs in the year 2000-01 from the OP Bank and the Lease deed already lying with the OP Bank was retained by them as security towards the second loan.  However, in the year 2006, the complainant approached the OP Bank and requested them to receive all outstanding amounts in the loan account and return the original Lease Deed but the same was not done by the OPs, saying that the OP bank had misplaced the original Lease Deed and as a result the second loan of the complainant could not be secured by the OPs.  Thereafter a lot of correspondence took place between the parties but the original Lease Deed or even a photocopy thereof could not be supplied to the complainant by the OPs.

7]             The contention of the complainants is that on account of the deficient and negligent act of the OPs misplacing the original Lease Deed, the complainants suffered irreparable financial loss as the market value of the property, which was Rs.3.50 crores earlier was later on reduced to Rs.2.80 crores as the same could not be sold at the proper time in the absence of the original Lease Deed and hence, the present complaint asking for a compensation of Rs.19.50 lacs as also interest and cost of litigation etc.

8]             The OPs in their joint reply while admitting the grant of two loans to the complainant have stated that the Lease Hold Property of the complainants has already been converted into Free Hold and as such the earlier Lease Deed became redundant because the complainants were free to sell the property after the conversion of the same from Lease Hold to Free Hold.  The OPs also say that the agreement to sell produced by the complainant was a false, fabricated and self-created document.  Another objection taken by the OPs is that the present complaint is time barred as the last cause of action had arisen only on 25.9.2006 when the alleged legal notice was issued by the complainants to theOPs.

9]             So far as the question of limitation for filing the present complaint is concerned, it is a matter of record that the present complaint was filed on 20.2.2009 and as per the OPs the legal notice was served upon them on 25.9.2006 and that thereafter there has been no further cause of action and therefore, the present complaint is time barred on the ground that the maximum permissible period for filing a consumer complaint is two years from the date of cause of action as per Section 24-A of the C.P.Act, 1986.

10]            Annexure C-7 shows that the OP Bank had written to the Estate Officer, Chandigarh on 15.2.2007 conveying its no objection to the issuance of a fresh conveyance deed in respect of the property in question.  Subsequently, the complainants had filed a complaint in the State Commission, which was disposed of by the Hon’ble State Commission, U.T., Chandigarh on 24.9.2008 permitting the complainants to file the complaint in the District Forum after amending the relief.  Keeping in view of these facts & circumstances, the present complaint is fully within the limitation period.

11]            After having a detailed analysis of the entire case including the pleadings/averments of all the parties and also the documents placed on record, in addition to the arguments put forth by the ld.Counsel for the parties, it is quite clear that the complainants had deposited the original Lease Deed in respect of H.No.400, Sector 46, Chandigarh with OP No.1 by way of mortgage for securing the loan of Rs.3.00 lacs in the first instance and another loan of Rs.4.50 lacs at a later date.  The problem arose in the year 2006 when the complainants wanted to pay the second loan amount in full by paying the entire balance outstanding and asked the OPs to return the original Lease Deed to them as they were interested to sell the property.  As contended by the complainant and also admitted by the OPs, the original Lease Deed was misplaced by the OPs and could not be traced and returned to the complainants either in original or a photocopy thereof.  Due to non-supply of the original Lease Deed by the OPs to the complainants, the complainants definitely suffered lot of harassment and may have incurred some financial loss as well. So far as the financial loss on account of misplacement of the original Lease Deed by the OP Bank is concerned, the same cannot be quantified by the Forum.  Moreover, the financial loss, if any, is only a consequent event for which compensation may not be granted.  But in respect of harassment part, the matter is absolutely clear.  The OP Bank has definitely and surely been not only deficient in service but also negligent in discharging its duty of safeguarding the custody of the original Lease Deed.  It is fully established that the original Lease Deed, which was entrusted by the complainants to the OPs as security for the loans raised by them, was misplaced by the OP Bank and could not be returned to them even when the entire loan amount was repaid by the complainants, which is an act of negligence as well as deficient service on the part of the OPs. Thus, in our considered opinion, there is gross deficiency in service and also an act of grave negligence on the part of OPs for which they are liable to compensate the complainants.  

12]            Keeping in view the detailed discussion in the foregoings, we feel that there is considerable weight, merit and substance in the complaint, which must succeed.  We therefore decide the complaint in favour of the complainants and against the OPs and direct the OPs to jointly and severally make the following payments to the complainants:-

i)         The OPs shall pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the complainants for causing physical harassment and mental agony, pain on account of misplacing the original Lease Deed entrusted to them by the complainants for securing their loan accounts, due to which the complainants suffered financial and other losses.

ii)        The OPs shall also pay Rs.5000/- as cost of litigation to the complainants. 

                The aforesaid amounts shall be paid by the OP within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which the OP shall pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the complainants along with interest @18% per annum as calculated from 15.2.2007 i.e. the date on which OPs formally admitted the loss of the original lease deed by them till the date of actual payment besides paying the litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.

                Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

12.08.2010                                                         Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

                                                                Sd/-

                                                        ( ASHOK  RAJ  BHANDARI)

MEMBER

Sd/-

MADHU MUTNEJA

MEMBER

‘Om’