Between:

G.Chandrasekhar Rao,

S/o Narahari Rao,

Proprietor, Hote Tourist,

D.No.25/140, Sanjeeva Nagar,

Nandyal – 518 501,

Kurnool District.                                  …Complainant

                                                    -Vs-      

1. The Branch Manager,

   25/506, Syndicate Bank,

   Sreenivasa Nagar,

   Nandyal – 518 501.

2. The General Manager,

   Head Office, Credit Department,

   Syndicate Bank,

   Munipal, Udipi District,

   Karnataka – 576 104.                                                ...Opposite ParTies

. 

This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.A.V.Subranamyam, Advocate for complainant and Sri.B.Narasimhulu, Advocate for opposite parties 1 and 2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.

                                               ORDER

(As per Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, Male Member)                                                             C.C. No.16/2012

1.     The case is filed by the complainant under section 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 praying an order on opposite parties:-

(a)          To return the original title deeds bearing DOC Nos.2426/96 dated 12-06-1996 and DOC Nos.6217/1998 dated 14-11-1998;

(b)          To pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-  as compensation for mental agony;

(c)           To pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of the case.

2.    The complainant’s case is that he availed housing loan from opposite party No.1 under the loan account No.OSLPS19990042 depositing the original title deeds (1) DOC No.2426/1996 dated 12-06-1996, (2) DOC No.6217/1998 dated 14-11-1998 and created Equitable Mortgage over his house property.   After repaying the entire loan amount the complainant closed his loan account on 31-08-2004.  The opposite party No.1 even after receiving loan amount completely did not release the original title deeds to the complainant.  He went on postponing to return the documents as they were misplaced.  Believing the words of opposite party No.1, the complainant waited for several years and finally brought to the notice of opposite party No.2 who is head of opposite party No.1.  Even then as there was no response from opposite parties, a legal notice dated 17-06-2010 and another notice dated 28-03-2011 were got issued to opposite party No.2.  After the receipt of notice AGM of opposite party bank replied on 11-04-2011 intimating that the matter was taken up by R.O. at Anantapur and the documents will be returned soon.  Even after a lapse of 7 years from the date of repayment of loan as opposite parties showed negligent attitude to return the documents the complainant suffered mental agony and could not get loan from other banks.  Hence this case is filed before this Forum claiming appropriate reliefs. 

3.     Sworn affidavit and documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 are filed by the complainant to support his case.

4.     Persuent to the notice of this Forum opposite party No.1 filed his written version denying his liability to the complainant’s claim.  Opposite party No.2 filed a memo adopting the written version of opposite party No.1.  Opposite parties admitted that the complainant while availing house loan deposited DOC No.2426/1996 and 6217/1998 for creating equitable mortgage.  After a gap of 6 years from the date of repayment of loan, the complainant made a request for the release of documents.  The opposite parties averred that the original documents were misplaced and certified copy of documents from sub-register were made ready to deliver to the complainant.  But the complainant was negligent for taking these certified copies of documents.  Hence opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the case awarding Rs.10,000/- as cost of the case.  

5.     Opposite parties filed sworn affidavit in support of the case.

6.     Both parties filed their written arguments.

7.     Hence the points for consideration are:

                     i.        Whether the complainant made out a case against opposite parties to prove deficiency?

                    ii.        Whether the complainant is entitled compensation?

                  iii.        To what compensation?

8.      POINTS i and ii:-  Admittedly the original documents No.2426/1996 dated 12-06-1996 and 6217/1998 dated 14-11-1998 were deposited by the complainant for creating equitable mortgage over his house in the housing loan No.OSLPS19990042 availed by the complainant with opposite parties bank.   The complainant repaid his loan amount and closed the account on 31-08-2004.  Opposite party No.1 misplaced the original documents and failed to return them to the complainant.  Instead opposite parties secured certified copies of documents from sub-register and wanted to return to the complainant.  But the complainant sought original documents as they are required for getting loan from other banks.  Further the complainant contended that the value of the property will get reduced in the absence of original documents.  Opposite parties submitted that the claim of documents is time barred.  From what is stated above two questions arise which need to answer.  (1) Whether the certified copy of documents in place of original title deeds can reduce the market price of the property.                  (2) Whether the complaint is time barred?  The answers to these questions are found in the citation 2005 – LAWS (NCD) – 9 – 94, 2005-CPJ-4-137, 2006-CLT-1-260 filed by the complainant.  Present case is similar to that mentioned in the citation.  In accordance with view of National Commission that it would not be difficult to sell the property in a case of loss of registered deed if proper advertisement is given that the property is free from any encumbrances.  Hence it would not be proper to award compensation as claimed by the complainant.  The title deeds were given to the bank in good faith and considering the bank would be the safest place for keeping such title deeds.  From Ex.A5 it is clear that it cannot be said that the complaint is time barred because the bank was also trying to get bank the documents and return the same to the complainant.  At no point of time it had refused to deliver the same to the complainant.   Therefore it would be difficult to arrive at a conclusion that this complaint is time barred.  From what is stated above the Forum holds that there is clear deficiency on the part of opposite parties in not returning the title deeds. 

9.     Considering the facts of the case and directions of national Commission it would be just and reasonable to direct opposite party bank that to return the original title deeds of the property, if they are misplaced, the certified copy of documents with indemnity bond against loss of original deeds may be delivered to the complainant. Complainant’s claim regarding compensation for harassment and mental agony is allowed. 

10.    In the result, the claim of the complainant is partly allowed directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to return the original title deeds DOC No.2426/1996 dated 12-06-1996 and DOC No.6217/1998 dated 14-11-1998.  If they are found missing, the certified copies of documents along with indemnity bond against loss of original deeds shall be delivered to the complainant.  For deficiency of service and causing mental agony opposite parties shall pay Rs.20,000/- as  compensation.  Rs.5,000/- is allowed as cost of the case.  Time for compliance is one month from the date of receipt of this order. 

        Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 27^th day of November, 2012.

Sd/-                                     Sd/-                                Sd/-        

MALE MEMBER                      PRESIDENT                  LADY MEMBER

      APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                    Witnesses Examined

For the complainant : Nill            For the opposite parties : Nill

List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-

Ex.A1                Representation Letter dated 26-04-2010.

Ex.A2                Office copy of Legal Notice dated 17-06-2010.

Ex.A3                Office copy of Legal Notice dated 28-03-2011.

Ex.A4                Postal Receipts and Acknowledgements (Nos.3).

Ex.A5                Reply Notice dated 11-04-2011.

List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:- NILL

Sd/-                                   Sd/-                                   Sd/-        

MALE MEMBER                 PRESIDENT                   LADY MEMBER

    // Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//

Copy to:-

Complainant and Opposite parties  :

Copy was made ready on             :

Copy was dispatched on               :