SRI NILAKANTHA PANDA, PRESIDENT

           The instant Complainant has filed this complaint petition, U/s-35 of C.P.A.-2019, (here-in- after called as the “Act”) alleging a “deficiency-in-service” against the Opp. Parties. 

           The factual matrix of this case is that the complainant is an unemployed youth who run a garment shop in Room No.36 of New Market Complex, Fandi Chhak, Sahadevkhunta, Balasore availing financial assistance (Loan) from the Ops, bearing loan product identification number as, NA: 155-MT(NA). It is further stated that on 13/01/2014, the complainant deposited the original RSD bearing No.6212 of dated 18/07/2011 stands in the name of his wife namely Mandakini Nayak, original ROR of Khata No.474/2091 of Mouza Sahadevkhunta along with 36 nos. of post-dated cheques of BBCCB, Balasore and along with other ancillary documents, after which the Ops sanctioned loan of Rs.02, 50,000/- in favour of the complainant with reference to his loan A/c. No.001014001984. That in the meantime, the complainant cleared up all the dues of the Ops-Bank and when he asked the O.Ps to return the original documents, which he has submitted at the time of sanction of loan, the office bearers of the Ops-Bank did not listen to it, despite several request of the complainant.

           Thereafter, the complainant had applied for a house building extension / renovation loan before the HDB Bank for an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- and the authority concerned have already inspected his house premises and agreed to sanction the loan and instructed the instant complainant submit the original documents of this housing premises i.e. RSD and ROR of the land in question. Thus, the complainant requested the Ops-Bank for return of his original documents, for the reason stated above, but the O.P.s played a dilatory tactics. Therefore, on 26/10/2022, the complainant served legal notice on the Ops and the Ops have received notice, on dated 27/10/2022, 28/10/2022, respectively (As per Tacking report), but intentionally & deliberately, or any other reason best known to O.P.s, the O.P.s remained silent till date which casts a clear case of deficiency in service towards the complainant. For the above negligent acts of the Ops, the complainant became harassed and sustained mental agony.          

           The cause of action arose for filing the case on 22/12/2022, when the Ops have not taken any steps to return the original documents along with 36 nos. of post-dated cheques.

           With the afore-stated facts and circumstances, the complainant left with no other option was constrained to file the present case with the reliefs, as prayed for in their complaint petition. Hence, this case.

           To substantiate his case, the complainant has relied on the following documents, which are placed in the record, as mentioned hereunder-

1. Photocopy of Advocate notice.
2. Photocopies of track consignment (3 sheets).
3. Photocopy of account statement from 01/01/2014 to 29/09/2022.
4. Photocopy of RSD No.10061106088 dated 18/07/2011.
5. Photocopy of ROR of Khata No.476/2091 of Mouza Sahadevkhunta.
6. Original bench mark valuation report of DSR, Balasore.

           In this present case, OP No.1 & 2 appeared and filed their joint written version whereas OP No.3 did not appear irrespective of receipt of the notice, hence, he was set ex parte. 

           That the OP No.1 & 2, in their joint / common written version, not only challenged the cause of action to file the present case but also emphatically stated that the case is not maintainable. Both the Ops have admitted the fact that the complainant has cleared up the outstanding loan of the Bank on 22/09/2022 and while obtaining loan, he submitted the relevant RSD and Mutated ROR in question. But denied the fact of depositing 36 nos. of post-dated cheques at the time of sanction of loan in complainant’s favour. Further, the Ops have stated that while shifting the files at Main Branch, Balasore from one room to another within the Bank premises, the concerned loan file of the complainant is missing during the process of shifting and the bank is duty bound to execute the re-conveyance deed in favour of the complainant as against the said deed or mortgage and also return the certified copy of the relevant RSD and ROR at their own cost. Thus, as the Op bank is ready to supply  certified copies of the missing original documents, there is absolutely no deficiency of service on the part of the Ops-Bank and the amount claimed by the complainant is totally false and imaginary and without any basis. 

           In view of the above averments of parties, the points for determination in this case are as follows:-

(i)         Whether the Complainant is a Consumer or not?

(ii)         Whether the complainant has cause of action to file this case?

(iii)        Whether this consumer case is maintainable?

(iv)        Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?

(v)        Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief, as sought for?

(vi)        To what other relief(s), the Complainant is entitled to? 

F  I  N  D  I  N  G  S

           First of all it is to be ascertained as to whether the complainants are “Consumers” or not. From the averments of the pleadings of the complainants and document produced on behalf of the complainants vide above mentioned Annexures, it is clearly admitted and established that the complainants have availed a Housing Loan facility , on payment of consideration (Interest Money) as rendered by the OP, the Balasore Bhadrak Central Co-Operative Bank, Balasore, Odisha. The Ops have not denied that the complainant is not a consumer under them. Therefore, the complainant is well covered under the previews of definition of “Consumer” as defined under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

           That to arrive at conclusion, weather, there is a “Cause of Action” arose / lies on the part of the O.Ps, it is seen on the face of the complaint petition vis-à-vis the annexed relating to them, the Ops did not pay any attention to it. But for fixing the liability of cause of action upon the OP, the complaint has exercised its decision to consider date on which it’s last Advocate’s Notice was issued to the Ops. That as the Op, in this case matter did not turnout with any solution, hence allegedly there after the cause of action considered to arise.

           Before delve into the merits of the case, it is required to be decided how far the complainant is able to prove his case with regard to the maintainability of the complaint. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant was an unemployed youth and to maintain his livelihood run a garment shop in Room No.36 of New Market Complex, Fandi Chhak, Sahadevkhunta, Balasore availing loan from the Ops.

           It is further submitted that on 13/01/2014, the complainant deposited the “ORIGINAL” RSD bearing No.6212 dated 18/07/2011 stands in the name of his wife namely “Mandakini Nayak”, original ROR of Khata No.474/2091 of Mouza Sahadevkhunta and 36 nos. of post-dated cheques of BBCCB, Balasore along with other ancillary documents, after which Ops sanctioned loan of Rs.02, 50,000/- in his favour with reference to his loan A/c. No.001014001984. In the meantime, admittedly the complainant cleared up all the dues of the Ops-Bank and when he asked to return the “original” documents, which he has submitted at the time of sanction of loan, the office bearers of the Ops-Bank did not listen to it. Thus, the complainant kept on requesting time & again to the Ops-Bank, for return of his original documents so deposited, to use them for similar other propose, but the O.Ps played a dilatory – time killing tactics. Therefore, on 26/10/2022, the complainant served Legal Notice on the Ops and the Ops have duly received notice, but intentionally & deliberately remained silent till date, for which the complainant got dejected and files this case. Hence it is determined that the present case filled is within the permitted scope of the CP Act, hence it is maintainable under this Act.

           From the submissions of complainant, it is clear that he availed loan from the Ops-Bank and at the time of sanction of loan, he had deposited “original” Registered Sale Deed and Record of Right in respect of the homestead land stand in his wife’s name, along with 36 nos. of post-dated cheques and the complainant has already paid all the outstanding dues of the Ops-Bank, but the Ops-Bank did not return the original documents so also the post-dated cheques. In this regard, it is the version of the Ops-Bank that the concerned loan file of the complainant is “missing” during the process of shifting of documents from one room to another in the same premises and the Bank is duty bound to execute the re-conveyance deed in favour of the complainant as against the said deed and return the certified copy of RSD and ROR at their own cost, in lieu of the Missing Original Deed & ROR. It is not the lookout of the complainant, rather the Ops-Bank is trying itself to escape from the liabilities. The Ops-Bank should have taken appropriate coercive measures in returning the documents of the complainant in original or otherwise, as acceptable by the complainant, soon after receipt of the complaint notice from this Commission, but the Ops-Bank remained silent even not acted upon their responsibilities. That apart, it is stated in their written version to dismiss the case with an observation that the certified copy of the relevant RSD and ROR be returned to the complainant and also the re-conveyance deed be executed as against the said mortgage deed before the concerned Registrar Office by the Ops-Bank at their own cost. It is not the prayer of the Ops-Bank, rather the Ops-Bank suggested this Commission to do as above. This type of practice on the part of a Government Authorised / Approved financial institution is highly condemnable. This Commission is abide by the law to sit over the matter with a view to dispose of the lies between the parties on the merits of the issue, not on the basis of the suggestion given by either party. By this, the Ops-Bank cannot escape from their liabilities. For the above latches on the part of the Ops-Bank, the complainant debarred from availing subsequent financial assistant from any other institution, by which obviously the complainant have sustained mental agony for not availing the house building loan in life-time. Therefore, this is a fit case where “deficiency of service” is established as against the Ops-Bank, as enumerated in the C.P.Act.

           That so far as relief sought for is concerned, it is an admitted fact that the Ops-Bank has received full & final repayment as on 22/09/2022 and closed the loan account which stand against the name of the complainant. That the issue / discontentment / dispute arises only for return of “Original Documents” as submitted but the Complainant at the time of availing Loan. That to ascertain whether, complainant reserves any right for relief, beyond & above the option as offered by the O.Ps, this commission proceeded to rely upon the following Judgement Citation as laid down by the Hon’ble Nation Commission;

Bihar State housing Cooperative federation Ltd, VS Sushila Devi, [2006(2) CPJ197 (NC)]

Dosan Chemicals P.Ltd VS United Bank of India, [2003(1) CPJ 214 (NC)]

State Bank of India VS Ananda Mohan Saha,

[1999(2) CPR 18 (NC)]

           Where it is established that failure and / or refusal of returning of original documents relating to land, return of title deed and refusal of pledged article is a “clear cut deficiency” on the part of the O.Ps, which is required to be appropriately be compensated.

           That during the course of hearing / argument the Ld. Counsel of the complainant stated that, the complainant in the meantime has tried to avail a fresh loan from some other financial institution, one called HBD Bank, who was almost agreed to sanction the loan but turn-down the loan proposal on event of non-production of “original document” of the Land in question. That basing upon this experience the Ld. Advocate of the complainant stated in course of hearing that, if any person fails to submit the “original” documents in relation to any land / property, then no Bank & NBFC, would release any loan amount. Hence for this reason, the option stated by O.P.s to fetch certified copies, could never re-gain the “Pledge / Mortgage - Value” of the Land in question, which means the Land becomes “valueless” for any future pledge / mortgage / hypothecation, as the case may be.  

           That in this regard, the complainant submitted a “Reserve Bank of India” issued guidelines vide No. RBI/2023-24/60, DoR.MCS.REC.38/01.01.001/2023-24, Dt. 13.09.2023, requiring Regulated Entities to release property documents upon loan closure, wherein it has been stated that the Regulated Entities shall release all the original movable / immovable property documents and remove charges registered with any registry within a period of 30 days after full repayment / settlement of the loan account. Further, it has been stipulated that in case of delay in releasing of original movable / immovable property documents or failing to file charge satisfaction form with relevant registry beyond 30 days after full repayment / settlement of loan, the Regulated Entities shall communicate to the borrower valid reasons for such delay. In case where the delay is attributable to the Regulated Entities, it shall compensate the borrower at the rate of Rs.05, 000/- for each day of delay. In the present case, as stated by the Ops-Bank, the loan file of the complainant is alleged to be missing while shifting the files of Main Branch, Balasore from one room to another within the Bank premises and as it is seen from the case record, the documents in question has not yet been released in favour of the complainant. In this regard, the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India speaks itself that in case of loss / damage to original movable / immovable property documents, either in part or in full, the Regulated Entities shall assist the borrower in obtaining duplicate / certified copies of the movable / immovable property documents and shall bear the associates costs, in addition to paying compensation as indicated above. Further, the compensation provided under these directions shall be without prejudice to the rights of a borrower to get any other compensation as per any applicable law. These directions shall be applicable to all cases where release of original movable/ immovable property documents falls due on or after December 1, 2023. The above directions are issued under Sections 21, 35-A and 56 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, Sections 45-JA and 45-L of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, and Section 30-A of the National Housing Bank Act, 1987.

           In the present case, the complainant has admittedly repaid the outstanding loan amount on 22/09/2022. That as the loan & its repayment / recovery is well-completed on / or before the 1^st December, 2023, it does not attribute to any delay compensation, as it is self-enumerated in the circular.

           Hence, it is ordered –

                                                                 O   R   D   E   R

           Having regard to the judgement reflected above, the Complaint Petition of the instant Complainants bears merit and hence allowed on contest against O.Ps No.1 & 2 and on ex parte against O.P No.3. That this Commission is of the unanimous opinion that there is a gross deficiency on the part of the O.Ps. Hence, the O.Ps are hereby set liable for its gross deficiency of service. Hence the complainant reserves appropriate right to be awarded with compensation, as sought for in its main compliant petition, & demanded with submission of appropriate documents (Bench Mark Valuation of Land) in course of Hearing – Argument. Hence, the O.Ps are hereby directed to:-

           That the O.Ps are hereby required to “return” all the documents submitted by complainant  with O.Ps, while availing the loan, be it original and / or copy, as maintained in original Complaint Petition. 

OR,

           That upholding the prayer of the complainant in course of hearing, in connection to losing the Guaranteeing / Pledge / Mortgage Value of the Land in absence of original title documents vis-à-vis the bench mark value as set out by the appropriate authority, the O.P.s are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.02, 09, 08, 800/- (Rs. 5,80,800 x 36 Dc).

AND

1. That upholding the first prayer of the complainant, the O.Ps are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs 01, 00, 000/- (One Lakh), as set out in the Schedule annexed to the prayer of the complaint petition for compensation & mental agony, with an interest of @ 9.00% P.A., from the date of cause of action (22.12.2022) till date of actual payment.
2. That upholding the second prayer of the complainant, the O.Ps are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs 10, 000/- (ten Thousand), as set out in the Schedule annexed to the prayer of the complaint petition for cost of proceeding & advocates fee.

           All the aforesaid ordered amounts / compliances will be paid / abided by the O.Ps to the complainants within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.

           That deferment in any manner / mode / reason / step thereof, for compliance of this order, as directed above, the O.Ps, shall carry out with an additional fine of Rs.01, 500/- (Rupees One Thousand and Five Hundred) only, per day and an additional interest of @ 12.00% P.M., upon Order, payable by the defaulter O.Ps to the complainant.

           In case of failure by any of the O.Ps to comply any of the orders as above mentioned, within the aforesaid stipulated time frame, the Complainant is at liberty to realize the same in the shape of cash, kind and / or in any other mode / action as afore mentioned, from the O.Ps as per the prevailing law.

           Pronounced in the open Court of this Commission on this day i.e. the 05th day of February, 2024 given under my Signature & Seal of the commission.