IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

  Present:    THIRU.K. BASKARAN,                            ::PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                   TMT.DR.S.M.LATHA MEHESWARI ::  MEMBER

C.C.No.30/2016

 MONDAY, THE 5^th DAY OF AUGUST 2019.

                                                    Date of complaint filed: 28.01.2016

                                                       Date of orders      :       05.08.2019

Shri.R.Gopi,

Retired Clerk-cum-Shroff, SR.No.55547,

Indian Bank, No.2/19,

Kurathi Amman Koil Cross Street,

Chrompet, Chennai – 600 044.                                                    ::       Complainant

Vs.

1.       The Chairman and Managing Director,

Indian Bank, No.254-260,

Avvai Shanmugam Salai,

          Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014. 

2.       The Chief Manager, (CSC)

          Indian Bank,

          Co: Customer Service Cell,

 No.254-260,

Avvai Shanmugam Salai,

          Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014.

3.       The Branch Manager,

          Indian Bank,

          Washermenpet Branch,

Tiruvottiyur High Road,

          Old Washermenpet, Chennai – 600 021.          ::       Opposite Parties  

Counsel for the complainant                                     :    M/s.N.Ganesan.

Counsel for the opposite parties 1 to 3                      :   M/s.T.Sundar Rajan.

              This complaint having come up for final hearing before us on 18.07.2019 and on hearing the arguments of both and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following;-

ORDER

THIRU.K. BASKARAN, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.

               This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 17 (1) (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying this Commission to direct the opposite parties  to pay a) a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- towards the loss of the original title deeds of the house property of the complainant and other connected expenses, b) further to pay 5,50,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service, mental agony and unfair trade practice c) further a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards legal expenses.        

1.         The complaint allegations germane for the purpose of this case;-  

That the complainant was an employee of the opposite party bank namely Indian Bank and when he was working as a sub-staff in Washermenpet branch he had availed staff housing loan of Rs.75,000/- in the year 1988 by creating equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds on 04.10.1988 and subsequently availed adhoc loan of Rs.2 lakhs for additional construction; that the complainant had retired on 30.11.2013  from his service on superannuation and the entire loan amount was discharged on 03.12.2013; that the opposite parties did not return the original deeds deposited by the complainant at the time of availing loan even after the loan was completely discharged inspite of personal requests and several letters which constrained the complainant to approach the Banking Ombudsman regarding the loss of the original title deeds deposited by the complainant; that the Banking Ombudsman had written a letter dt.31.8.2015 to the complainant stating that the bank was not able to trace the original title deeds and they would have to pay compensation for the lapse on their part and closed the complaint advising the complainant to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance; that the acts of the opposite parties would amount to deficiency in service and hence they should be directed to pay a sum of Rs.20 lakhs as compensation for the  loss of original title deeds and Rs.2 lakhs as compensation for deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and Rs.3 lakhs as compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the unfair trade practice adopted by the opposite parties and Rs.25,000/- as legal expense;

2.      The defence of the opposite parties as culled out from the written version filed by 3^rd opposite party and adopted by other opposite parties:-

It is true that the complainant was an employee of the opposite parties’ bank and that he availed house building advance and that when he was transferred to other branch the loan account was also transferred to that branch; but the original documents to be retained by the branch which had sanctioned and disbursed the loan amount and that the complainant retired from service as clerk on 30.11.2013 and the loan account was closed on 03.12.2013; that the title deeds deposited by the complainant could not be traced and the same was informed to the complainant and the complainant was requested to furnish copy of the deed so as to enable the bank to apply for a certified copy of the document and hand over the same to the complainant along with required certificate but the complainant did not oblige  and in any event the 3^rd opposite party had managed to apply for certified copy of the said document and had also lodged a complaint with the concerned police station and effected paper publication in one English Daily 17.03.2016 and one Tamil Daily on the same day; that the absence of original title deeds would not diminish value of property and that the complainant could enter into any transactions in respect of the property with the help of certified copy of the document; that there was neither any deficiency in service nor adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and that the reliefs claimed are exorbitant and hence the complaint has to be dismissed;

3.       The points for consideration are ;-

          (1)   Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite

                 Parties?  

          (3)   What relief the complainant is entitled to?

4.     Point No.1 :-          The complainant has filed proof affidavit and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A17 were marked, the opposite parties have filed proof affidavit and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B7 were marked.

5.       We are of the view that this point can be answered based on the admitted facts which are as follows;

1. The complainant was a staff member of the opposite parties’ bank and while he was serving in the Washermenpet branch of the opposite parties’ bank he had availed two staff house building advance aggregating to Rs.2,75,000/- by executing Equitable Mortgage by deposit of title deeds on 04.10.1988;
2. That the complainant had retired from service from the opposite parties’ bank on superannuation on 30.11.2013 from T.Nagar branch of the opposite parties’ bank and the entire loan amount was repaid and the account was closed;
3. Despite the discharge of entire loan amount the opposite parties and particularly the 3^rd opposite party could not return the original title deed deposited by the complainant inspite of repeated requests orally and through letters as the same had been admittedly lost whilst in the custody of the 3^rd opposite party branch;
4. That the 3^rd opposite party had lodged a complaint with Korukkupet Police Station regarding the loss of the document and CSR was issued and not traceable certificate was yet to be issued;
5. That as the original document was not returned to the complainant he had filed a complaint with the Banking Ombudsman which had, after enquiry, directed the opposite parties’ bank to obtain the certified copy of title deed and to pay compensation as per the policy and advised the complainant to approach the  appropriate Forum for further relief;

Hence the complainant had approached this Commission seeking compensation alleging deficiency in service;  

6.       Hence, it emerges that the title deed deposited by the complainant with the 3^rd opposite party branch while availing house building loan was not returned to the complainant even after the said loan was fully discharged for the reason that the same was lost by the 3^rd opposite party bank. Hence there is no other option for this Commission except to hold that the 3^rd opposite party is guilty of deficiency in service arising out of the negligence exhibited by it. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the opposite party would cite the case law reported in CDJ (2012) MAH SCDRC 102 in Rupam Colour Lab Pvt. Ltd., and others Vs. ICICI Bank and Another, wherein it was held by the learned Maharastra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission that loss of documents in the custody of the bank which were deposited in bank in connection with loan transactions would not constitute deficiency in service.

7.       Per contra, the learned counsel for the complainant would rely upon the case law reported in 2016 (2) CPJ 47 (NC) in State Bank of India and Ors Vs. Dharshan Lal, wherein it was held by the Hon’ble National Commission that when the bank had lost the original documents deposited by the customers in connection with some loan transactions it would amount to deficiency in service on the part of the bank;

8.       Hence, our above view is strengthened by the Hon’ble National Commission’s order in the case law cited supra. Hence, we hold and answer there was deficiency in service on the part of the 3^rd opposite party who is a sub-ordinate officer on the other two opposite parties who in turn are also vicariously liable to compensate the complainant for the acts of their sub-ordinate if it caused loss to the complainant and we answer this point accordingly.

9.            Point No.2:-              The complainant had claimed a hectic sum of Rs.25,50,000/- under various heads as compensation for the loss of original title deed in respect of his house property. A perusal of the complaint would show that the complainant had not specifically pleaded how many documents were deposited by him and what were those documents. At this juncture, the defence of the opposite party is that the complainant had deposited only one original sale deed dated 26.10.1988 executed by one Balaraman in favour of the complainant and registered on the file Sub-Registrar Office, Pallavaram in respect of the undivided half share of the land measuring 2430 sq.ft. comprised in S.No.165/2B in Nemilichery Village, Jamin Pallavaram. Even after this complainant had not stated anything in his proof affidavit about the number of documents and the particulars of documents deposited by him. But simply stated he had deposited original title deeds. Hence we have no hesitation to hold that only one original title deed dt.26.10.1988 was deposited by the complainant at the time of availing loan which was lost. Bearing this in mind we have to next proceed to decide the just and reasonable compensation that could be awarded to the complainant in this case.

10.     It cannot be disputed that an immovable property in respect of the which the original document was lost it would be defect for the owner to sell the same to the prospective buyers in as much there would be every reason for such a buyer to suspect that there might be multiple documentation; that there might have been some charge over this property such as equitable mortgage etc., and there might be some prior agreements or the owner might have furnished the original title deed as collateral security in respect of his own loan or in respect of some others loan as a guarantor. Though it cannot be said that such property cannot be sold at all still some difficulties and hardships should have to be encountered and over come before accomplish the sale which would result in the reduction of sale consideration fetched by such sale. We do not find any evidence here in this case to fix the market value of the property. Unfortunately, the property is a house site measuring nearly ½ ground situated in a place called Jamin Pallavaram which is a part of Greater Chennai Corporation and hence its value may be around Rs. 1 Crore. It cannot be also denied that the complainant was driven from pillar to post by the opposite party to get back his original title deed and only to be told that the said title deed was lost. Hence the complainant was put to metal agony and other hardships. Taking into consideration all these aspects, we are of the view that fixing the compensation for mental agony, other hardships and monetary loss suffered by the complainant at Rs.1 lakh is just and reasonable and would be in the ends of justice.

11.     Further the complainant is entitled to get a indemnity bond/certificate from the 3^rd opposite party in respect of the title deed lost in this case. Hence, we hold that the complainant is entitled to get Rs.1 lakh as compensation and indemnity bond/certificate issued by the 3^rd opposite party and this point is answered accordingly. 

          In the result, the complaint is partly allowed, directing the opposite parties jointly and severally

(a)      to furnish an indemnity bond/certificate in respect of the lost title deed in favour of the complainant;

(b)      to pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) as compensation for mental agony, other hardships and monetary loss to the complainant;

(c)       to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) towards the cost of litigation to the complainant;

(d)      the amount awarded in clause (b) shall be paid  within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which, the same shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization.

S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI                                               K. BASKARAN                                                                       

          MEMBER                                                    PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER  

Complainant(s) Document(s):-

1.   Ex.A1   :   Copy of ID card of the complainant.

2.   Ex.A2   :   Copy of Pension Payment order.

3.   Ex.A3   :   Copy of SHL Sanction dt.29.09.1998.

4.   Ex.A4   :   Copy of Adhoc SHL sanction dt.24.12.1998.

5.   Ex.A5   :   Copy of documents custody letter dt.16.06.1989 issued by

                     Washermenpet Branch.

6.   Ex.A6   :   Copy of Retirement Order dt.21.11.2013.

7.   Ex.A7   :   Copy of letters dt.16.12.2013, 08.02.2013, 14.07.2014 sent by T.Nagar

                     Br. To WPT Br. (series).

8.   Ex.A8   :   Copy of letter dt.01.08.2014 with complainant’s request sent by T.Nagar

                     Br. To Bank, Z.O., Chennai.

9.   Ex.A9   :   Copy of Personal Letter sent by the complainant dt.20.11.2014 to the

                     Bank, Zonal Office, Chennai.

10.  Ex.A10 :   Copy of Zonal Office letter dt.20.11.2014 to WPT Br.

11.  Ex.A11 :   Copy of complaint launched by the complainant to the Banking

                      Ombudsman, dt.02.07.2015.

12.  Ex.A12 :   Copy of Ombudsman dt.20.07.2015 to the complainant.

13.  Ex.A13 :   Copy of letter from IB, Customer Service Cell dt.07.08.2015 to the

                       complainant.

14.  Ex.A13 :   Copy of reply from complainant dt.16.08.2015 to ZO, CSC, Chennai.

15.  Ex.A14 :   Copy of order dt.31.08.2015 of the Banking Ombudsman.

16.  Ex.A15 :   Copy of reply letter dt.04.09.2015 sent by the complainant to the

                      Ombudsman.

17. Ex.A17 :    Copy of EC of the House Property from 1987 to 23.12.2014.

Opposite party(s) Document(s):-          

1. Ex.B1   :   Copy of certified copy of Sale Deed Doc.No.3488/88.

2. Ex.B2   :   Copy of complaint given by opposite parties dt.15.04.2016.

3. Ex.B3   :   Copy of CSR.No.78/H4PS/16 dt.15.04.2016.

4. Ex.B4   :   Copy of Publication in Trinity Mirror dt.17.03.2016.

5. Ex.B5   :   Copy of Publication in Makkal Kural dt.17.03.2016.

6. Ex.B6   :   Copy of affidavit of 3^rd opposite party dt.13.04.2016.

7. Ex.B7   :   Copy of reminder letter to Police with AD card dt.03.10.2016.

S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI                                              K. BASKARAN,                                                                       

          MEMBER                                                   PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER. 

INDEX; - YES/No

Bsd/e/JM/Orders