C.F. CASE No. : CC/10/69
COMPLAINANT : Samir Chakrabarti,
A-9/9 Kalyani, P.O. Kalyani,
Dist. Nadia
OPPOSITE PARTIES/OPs : 1) The Chairman,
State Bank of India,
Central Office,
Madame Cama Road,
Noriman Point, Mumbai.
- The Chief General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Kolkata Local Head Office,
1 Strand Road, Kolkata – 700001
3) The Branch Manager
State Bank of India,
Kalyani Industrial Growth Centre Branch,
P.O. Kalyani, Dist. Nadia
PRESENT : SHRI KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY PRESIDENT
: SHRI SHYAMLAL SUKUL MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 31st March, 2011
: J U D G M E N T :
In brief, the case of the complainant is that he took a loan of Rs. 1,25,000/- from the OP, State Bank of India, Kalyani Industrial Growth Centre Branch in 1986. At the time of loan the original registration receipt of his deed was deposited before the OP bank as the original deed was not available and on the basis of that receipt loan was duly sanctioned in his favour pending creation of equitable mortgage. It was the duty of the branch to collect the original title deed from the registration office in due time and to hold it in his custody as security till liquidation of the loan. The loan was fully liquidated in December 2004. Thereafter, he asked the OP No. 3 to return the original deed, but to no effect. In February/March 2007 the OP No. 3 verbally intimated that the original registration receipt was lost from his custody and also assured him that he would take necessary step to collect and return the original deed within a short time, but he did not act as per that at all. In the mean time, his house building required repair/renovation. So he submitted an application for further loan of Rs. 3,40,000/- to the OP No. 3, who verbally expressed unwillingness to sanction loan in the absence of the original title deed which was required to create an equitable mortgage. For immediate repair of his building he was agreed to take of loan of Rs. 3,40,000/- from the bank by making a collateral security of term deposits of Rs. 3,20,000/- belonging to his wife vide his letter dtd. 31.12.07. Though initially OP was ready to sanction the said amount, but ultimately it was not acted upon. Meanwhile he got a lucrative offer to sell the house, but due to non-availability of the original title deed it was not effected. Finally he requested the OP bank by a letter dtd. 18.08.09 to supply him statement of transactions of the closed housing loan amount which is not supplied him till to-date. He also sent several letters to the OP bank with a request to supply him the original title deed, but to no effect. After long persuasion the OP finally returned the title deed on 27.02.09. The activity of the OP has caused serious mental harassment and financial loss to this complainant due to non-supply of the original title deed in time. So for the above reasons he has filed this case praying for the reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint.
On the side of the OPs a written version is filed, inter alia, stating that the present case is not maintainable in its present form and nature. It is the submission of the OPs that the complainant was a retired bank official of the State Bank of India and after retirement he joined the service of the foreign department. Considering him as an ex-employee of the bank the OP No. 3 sanctioned housing loan of Rs. 1,25,000/- on 05.03.86 on the deposit of the registration receipt only and at that time it was agreed between the parties that the complainant would be responsible for collecting the original title deed from the office of the ADSR, Kalyani which in turn was supposed to be deposited with the bank towards the equitable mortgage of the property against the loan. But from 1986, till 2007 the complainant never attempted to collect the original lease deed from the office of the ADSR, Kalyani. Due to considerable management and other organizational changes in the banks since 1986 there is a possibility that the IGR might have been misplaced from the file of the complainant. However, on receipt of the request of the complainant to get back the original title deed, the OP bank lodged a GD entry in respect of the lost IGR, writing severally to the Estate Manager & Ex-Officio, Assistant Secretary to the Govt. of West Bengal, Kalyani, Nadia and also to the ADSR, Kalyani. Due to constant persuasion the original title deed was available from the ADSR, Kalyani and subsequently it was handed over to the complainant. This complainant never proposed to have a further loan of Rs. 4,20,000/- from the OP bank after mortgaging his property. The complainant’s property is a leasehold property and the bank cannot take mortgage of any such property unless the loan applicant submits the ‘no objection’ certificate issued by the Estate Manager for creating such mortgage. As the complainant failed to produce such ‘no objection’ certificate, so the process of the disbursement of the loan could not be completed. Besides this the title deed of the complainant was already handed over to the complainant more than 20 months ago, but since then no renovation work of the house building is yet done by this complainant. Practically after getting back the title deed in his custody the complainant has filed this case in order to harass the OPs with ulterior motive. The case is barred by limitation also. Practically he has no cause of action to file this case and the same is liable to be dismissed against him.
POINTS FOR DECISION
Point No.1: Has the complainant any cause of action to file this case?
Point No.2: Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
Point No.3: Is the case barred by limitation?
DECISION WITH REASONS
All the points are taken up together for discussion as they are interrelated and for the sake of convenience.
On a careful perusal of the petition of the complaint and the written version filed by the OPs along with the annexed documents filed by the parties and also after hearing the arguments advanced by the ld. lawyers for the parties it is available on record that admittedly the complainant took a loan of Rs. 1,25,000/- from the OP No. 3 in 1986 as housing loan. At that time the original registration receipt relating to the registration of the plot of land issued by ADSR, Kalyani was deposited with the OP No. 3 as at the time the original title deed was not delivered to the complainant. The registration receipt was deposited to the OP for pending creation of equitable mortgage. It is also available that in December, 04 the entire loan amount was liquidated. The complainant’s specific case is that thereafter he requested the OP No. 3 time and again to return the original title deed, but to no effect. Thereafter, he requested the OP Bank to sanction further loan, but due to non-availability of the title deed that loan was not sanctioned by the bank. From 'Annexure – B, C & D’ it is available that the complainant thereafter, requested the OP by sending letters in writing to collect the original title deed from the registry office and to deliver the same to him. But from the record we find the OP did not reply of any of the letters sent to him by the complainant. On the other hand, it is the categorical assertion of the OP that though the IGR was kept by him, but it was the duty of the complainant to collect the IGR from his office in order to take delivery of the original title deed which he did not do. At the same time he has submitted that the registration receipt was lost or misplaced from his custody. From 'Annexure – A’ one letter issued by Personnel Manager, SBI to the Branch Manager OP No. 3 dtd. 10.03.86 it is available that the Personnel Manger, categorically directed at ‘Para – 6’ of the letter to the effect “Please arrange to obtain and retain at the Branch the original receipt of registration of Shri Chakrabarty and take delivery of the deed on the due date for creation of the equitable mortgage. Please arrange to send a registered letter with A/D receipt to the concerned Registry Office stating clearly the difficulties faced by you for non receipt of the original title deed which is required for creation of equitable mortgage. The A/D card, when received, may please be kept alongwith the other documents.” On a careful perusal of this letter 'Annexure – A’ it is clear to us that the Personnel Manager directed the OP No. 3 to retain the registration receipt in his custody and to collect the original title deed on the due date for creation of equitable mortgage. But from the record, we find that since 1986 till 2008 the OP No. 3 did not take any positive step to collect the original title deed of the complainant though he was entrusted with that duty. Practically, the OP No. 3 took step to collect he original title deed after 2008 when it was detected that the registration receipt was lost from his custody. All the documents filed by the OP also speak that and in those documents the OP No. 3 clearly admitted that the registration receipt (IGR) was kept by the bank and inadvertently the deed was not collected by the Branch and the original receipt of registration was not traceable which appeared to have lost / misplaced. For informing this matter OP No. 3 wrote a letter to the OC, Kalyani P.S. dtd. 01.02.08, another letter to the Estate Manager and Ex-Officio, Assistant Secretary to the Govt. of West Bengal DC Building, Kalyani, Nadia dtd. 07.05.08, to the Additional District Sub-Registrar, Kalyani dtd. 04.08.08 and finally to the Regional Manager, SBI dtd. 14.08.08. All these correspondences clearly reveal that due to latches of the OP No. 3 the IGR was lost and he could not collect the original title deed of the complainant. From the other documents filed by the complainant we find that the complainant requested to grant him further loan to the OP No. 3, but the OP No. 3 did not pass any order in his favour. However, it is the discretion of the OP No. 3 either to grant loan or not to the complainant, but the fact is that the complainant could not approach to any other institution to have a loan for repair of his house building due to absence of original title deed. Even he could not sell it to a third party which is revealed from the deposition of the OP No. 2 also. After long persuasion and taking step by the OP No.3 the deed was finally delivered to the complainant on 27.02.09.
Therefore, in view of the above discussions and considering the facts of this case, we find that the OP No. 3 did not take any positive step to collect the original title deed of the complainant since 1986 till 2008. It is also established that the original IGR was lost from the custody of the OP No. 3 and he did not reply to any of the letters sent by the complainant to him vide 'Annexure – B, C & D.” The complainant suffered both financial and mental loss due to non-availability of the title deed of his valuable property for a long time and this loss was caused due to negligence on the part of the OP No. 3 who was the custodian of the registration receipt and did not collect the deed from the registration office in time for delivery of the same to the complainant. This is a gross deficiency in service on the part of the OP No. 3 undoubtedly which cannot be compensated by granting some amount in favour of the complainant.
Ld. lawyer for the OPs submits that the case is barred by limitation as the complainant learnt about the loss of the IGR in 2007, but he filed this case on 17.06.10 after a lapse of more than 2 years. So on this ground the case is barred by limitation. But from the documents filed by the complainant vide 'Annexure – B, C & D” it is available that since 2007 he made so many correspondences with the OP bank with a request to deliver him the original title deed of his land. His last letter was sent to the OP No. 3 on 06.02.09 (Annexure – F). In that letter he categorically stated “Till date the branch has not informed me anything in writing. The title deed is yet to be returned. I have not been able to repair my house for want of a loan. I have also not been able to approach any other organization for a loan due to non-return of title deed. As a sequel thereof my house has suffered severe damages. The tremendous mental agonies I have been forced to undergo by the branch is affecting my health very adversely. Due to lapse and inaction on the part of the branch I have suffered irreparable losses to my health and only residential building. While I am contemplating to approach appropriate authorities suitably in the matter I request you to please return the title deed within 7 days from the date of receipt of this letter.” So considering this 'Annexure – F’, letter dtd. 06.02.09, we find that the complainant for the last time approached the OP No. 3 for delivering of his original title deed within 7 days since the date of receipt of this letter. The letter was received by this OP on the self same date. The title deed was delivered to the complainant on 27.09.09. The present case is filed on 17.06.10. So considering the 'Annexure – F’ and other relevant documents we are inclined to hold that the case does not suffer from the point of limitation. Rather the case is filed within the time with a proper cause of action.
As the complainant has become able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP No. 3, so he is entitled to get compensation in this case. In result the case succeeds.
Considering the OP as a Govt. organization we hold that the complainant is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for harassment caused to him along with the litigation cost of Rs. 2,000/-.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case, CC/10/69 be and the same is decreed on contest against the OPs. The complainant is entitled to get Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for the loss suffered by him both mentally and financially along with Rs. 2,000/- as litigation cost. The OPs are jointly or severally liable to pay a decretal amount of Rs. 12,000/- to this complainant within a period one month since this date of passing this judgment, in default, the decretal amount will carry interest @10% per annum since this date till the date of realization of the full amount.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
