BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

28^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016

O R D E R

SMT. P.K SHANTHA, MEMBER

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Party (herein after referred as OP) with a prayer to direct the OP to return the original documents pertaining to the property of the complainant and pay an amount of Rs.19,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant for deficiency of service, gross negligence for loss and mental and inconvenience.

2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as under:

The complainant had obtained a home loan from the OP against his property bearing No.354/3, Khatha No.551, situated at Kaval Byrasandra, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring East to West – 40 feet and North to South – 60 feet.  At the time of obtaining the said loan against the property complainant had deposited the original sale deed dated 11.12.1995.  The complainant also deposited the original khatha certificate, khatha extract, encumbrance certificates and the tax paid receipts, conversion sanction certificate and such other documents.  The loan was sanctioned by the OP after obtaining the original documents as mentioned above by mortgaging the said property by way of deposit of title deeds.  The OP had issued a letter dated 06.12.2014 intimating the complainant that the term loan obtained by him under account No.10416430971 was closed with full recovery of up to date interest, which clearly indicates that the complainant has no other liability direct or in-direct, subsisting or contingent.  Upon intimating under the said letter dated 06.12.2014, the OP had instructed the complainant that the original property documents should be collected from the Assistant General Manager, RACPC, State Bank of India, Regional Business Office, No.13/1 ‘Kanakas Pride’, Bull Temple Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore-560004.  Accordingly the complainant visited the said office and they directed complainant to approach the OP to collect the original documents.

The complainant has raised a complaint with OP by e-mails and there has been continuous communication between OP and complainant.  Finally, on 18.05.2015, OP issued a letter to the complainant stating that the file pertaining to the loan account No.10416430971 in the name of the complainant has been misplaced during the process of migration to OPs main unit.  Upon receipt of the said letter dated 18.05.2015, the complainant has met the OP in person and has informed the OP about the difficulties that he would be facing in future without the original sale deed and other documents.  Since OP did not reply properly, complainant had also lodged a complaint before the Banking ombudsman, wherein the Banking ombudsman had ordered the OP to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service.  The compensation of Rs.25,000/- would not redress the difficulties that the complainant would be facing in the future with regard to his property in absence of the original documents.  Hence, this complaint.  The complainant has issued legal notice dated 06.01.2016 to the OP through RPAD and the notice was duly served on the OP.  OP neither given reply nor resolved the said issue.

3. The above case was admitted and thereafter notice was issued by this Forum to the OP.  The said notice was duly served on the OP but the OP has not appeared before the Forum and hence placed ex-parte.

4. So as to prove his case, the complainant filed written arguments as well as affidavit evidence in support of complainant reiterating the complaint averments and produced copies of documents.

5. The above said assertions of the complaint have remained unchallenged.  OP neither filed version nor denied the sworn testimony of the complainant.  Under the circumstances, we have no reasons to disbelieve the sworn testimony of the complainant.

6. Let us have a cursory glance at the documents produced by the complainant.  Document No.1 is the copy of sale deed dated 11.12.1995 produced herewith and marked as Annexure-A.  Document No.2 is the letter intimating the complainant that the term loan obtained by him was closed with full recovery of up to date interest is produced herewith as Annexure-B.  Document No.3 is the copy of order of Banking ombudsman, Bangalore is produced as Annexure-C.  Document No.4, 5, & 6 are the copies of legal notice dated 06.01.2016, postal receipt and postal acknowledgement are produced herewith as Annexure-D, E and F.

7. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, it is apparent that the complainant had obtained home loan from OP.  At the time of obtaining loan against the said property he had deposited the original documents by mortgaging the said property by way of deposit of title deeds as per letter issued by OP.  Though the complainant met the OP personally and informed the difficulties that he would be facing in future without original sale deed and other documents, the OP did not reply.  The complainant also lodged a complaint before the Banking Ombudsman, wherein the Banking Ombudsman had ordered the OP to pay amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for the deficiency of service.  The OP has not complied the order of Banking Ombudsman even till today.

8. The very fact of OP not contesting the proceedings leads us to draw an inference that OP is admitting the claim of the complainant.  There is no reasons to disbelieve the unchallenged affidavit of the complainant and documents produced.  The complainant suffered inconvenience and mental agony due to the negligent act of OP.  In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that, the complainant has successfully proved the deficiency of service on the part of OP.  Therefore, OP shall have to be directed to return the original documents pertaining to the property of the complainant and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for gross negligence and deficiency of service with litigation cost of Rs.3,000/-.

9. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:

       O R D E R

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is allowed in part.  OP is directed to return the original documents pertaining to the property of the complainant deposited with them.  Further OP is also directed to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for deficiency of service along with litigation cost of Rs.3,000/-.

This order is to be complied within 30 days from today.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 28^th day of September 2016)

MEMBER                                                               PRESIDENT

Vln* 

COMPLAINT No.422/2016

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 11.07.2016.

1. Mr.Prabhakar Ranga Rao

   Witnesses examined on behalf of OP – Nil.

   Documents produced by the OP - Nil

MEMBER                                                                PRESIDENT

Vln*