Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/57/2015

Aloor Narasaiah, S/o. A.Krishna Sastry, aged 72 years. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chief Manager - Opp.Party(s)

G.Ramaiah Pillai

25 Jun 2016

ORDER

Filing Date: 04.12.2015

Order Date:25.06.2016

 

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

 

SATURDAY THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND SIXTEEN

 

 

 

C.C.No.57/2015

 

 

Between

 

Aloor Narasaiah,

S/o. A.Krishna Sastry,

Hindu, aged 72 years,

Retired Deputy Manager,

State Bank of India,

Tilak Road Branch,

Tirupati.                                                                                             … Complainant

 

 

 

And

 

 

The Chief Manager,

State Bank of India,

Tilak Road Branch,

Tirupati.                                                                                             …  Opposite party.

 

 

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 10.06.16 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.G.Ramaiah Pillai, counsel for complainant, and Sri.D.Jayachandra, counsel for opposite party, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

 

 

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            This complaint is filed under Sections - 12 and 14 of C.P.Act 1986, for a direction to opposite party, to return the original sale deed bearing No.1834/1997 dt:08.09.1997 along with related documents or in alternative to pay damages of Rs.18,00,000/- for the loss of sale deed and Rs.3,000/- towards costs of the legal expenses.

            2.  The brief averments of the complaint are:-  that the complainant availed loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the opposite party on 15.10.1997 by creating mortgage and deposited the title deed of his house plot situated at Tiruchanoor village. The title deed / sale deed is bearing No.1834/1997 dt:08.09.1997, along with it he also enclosed TUDA proceedings for approval of layout building plan and plan approved by Tiruchanoor Grama Panchayat, for construction of building. Those documents were accepted by opposite party as security for loan amount.

            3.  The complainant also availed additional loan of Rs.1,02,000/- on 06.07.1998 and another amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on 01.02.1999 as education loan for his son A.Gopalakrishna and also availed another sum of Rs.3,00,000/-on 03.09.2003 for his another son on the same mortgage. On 05.08.2010 complainant approached the opposite party for reverse mortgage loan of Rs.9,00,000/- to meet his family needs urgently on the same registered sale deed No.1834/1997, but the opposite party returned his application without assigning any reason on 31.12.2010. When the complainant sought for information under R.T.I.Act, the opposite party replied that the original sale deed No.1834/1997 dt:08.09.1997 was found missing and could not be traced. The complainant has discharged and closed his loans 1 to 4 on 31.03.2001, 31.03.2001, 12.11.2008 and 21.09.2015 respectively. As his loan application on reverse mortgage dt:05.08.2010 was rejected, the complainant could not construct the building. Therefore, he wants to dispose-of his property along with existing building. But the buyers, who were come forward, are reducing the sale price of the building by 75% though the cost of the building is Rs.70 lakhs. Hence the complaint.

            4.  The opposite party filed its written version denying the contents of para.4, 7 to 9 of the complaint in respect of the loan application of the complainant for Rs.9,00,000/- on reverse mortgage, its rejection, information sought under RTI Act, value of the building and buyers reducing the price of the building by 75% and cost of the building at Rs.70 lakhs etc. and they were asked to strict proof of the same. The opposite party admitted the allegations in para.2, 3, 5 and 6 of the complaint and further contending that the complainant worked in the opposite party – bank, as Cash Officer and also was incharge of the vault, where the documents are secured for a longer period in the opposite party – bank. He availed the loans stated supra while working as an employee of opposite party – bank, in the same branch. The complainant in his own handwriting endorsed in the mortgage ledger as “received the document in order”. The complainant filed appeal before the General Manager (NW.3) and the same was dismissed on 27.04.2015.

            5.  That the complainant being the employee of the opposite party – bank, is well aware of the e-circular No.NBG/BOD-GB/123/2012-13 dt:30.03.2013 formulated on the basis of model compensation policy issued by the IBA  whereby the bank compensates the customer for deficiency in service on the part of the bank. As per the policy No.4.15 lender’s liability –commitments to borrowers – in the event of  loss of title deeds to mortgaged property at the hands of the banks, the compensation will cover out of packet expenses for obtaining duplicate documents plus lump sum amount, as decided by the bank in the following manner. “The bank would pay the compensation for the delay in return of securities / documents / title deeds of the mortgaged property beyond 15 days of repayment of all dues agreed to or contracted, subject to above conditions at Rs.100/- per day maximum Rs.5,000/- to the borrower”. The opposite party admitted that the title deed is lost in the control of the bank as early as in 2010. That the complaint is filed in the year 2015, so complaint is barred by limitation. The reverse mortgage application was returned by the bank on 31.12.2010 on the ground that the original sale deed in favour of complainant not enclosed, hence the limitation starts from 31.12.2010. Complaint is filed about 4 years beyond the limitation. This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Dispute between complainant and opposite party is contractual in nature and prays the Forum to dismiss the complaint with costs.

            6.  Both the parties have filed their respective chief affidavits as P.W.1 and R.W.1 and also got marked Exs.A1 to A21 for the complainant and Ex.B1 for the opposite party. Heard the counsel for both parties.

            7.  Now the points for consideration are:-

            (i). Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

            (ii). Whether the complainant is entitled to the releifs sought for?

            (iii). To what relief?

            8.  Point No.(i):-  to answer this point the admitted facts are that the complainant has availed loan of Rs.5,00,000/- on 15.07.1997 by depositing his title deeds on creating equitable mortgage with the opposite party, on the same mortgage the complainant also availed another loan of Rs.1,02,000/- on 06.07.1998 and another loan of Rs.2,00,000/- on 01.02.1999 and also availed another loan of Rs.3,00,000/- on 03.09.2003. That the complainant has discharged all these loans admittedly. Thereafter, when the complainant approached the opposite party on 05.08.2010 for obtaining loan of Rs.9,00,000/- on reverse mortgage, the opposite party rejected the application, on that the complainant sought for information as to why his application was rejected under the provisions of RTI Act, then only it was came to light that his original title deed bearing No.1834/1997 was found misplacing with the bank. It was admitted that the complainant has discharged the above said four loans. That the document i.e. title deed / original sale deed bearing No.1834/1997 was misplaced while it was under the control of the opposite party – bank. It is also admitted fact that the complainant also worked as Cash Officer in the same opposite party – bank, Tilak Road Branch, Tirupati, earlier and also incharge of vault where the documents secured for a longer period in the opposite party – bank. When the opposite party itself admitted in the written version as well as chief affidavit and also written arguments, and the learned counsel for the opposite party also fairly conceded during the oral arguments that the title deeds of the complainant were found missing, as the bank was changed from one place to another during which all the documents were dumped in a secured room, as such it became difficult to trace-out the said documents.  As per the new circular of the Indian Banks Association under Ex.B1, bank is ready to pay compensation of Rs.100/- per day for the delayed period subject to maximum of Rs.5,000/-, that the bank has no objection to pay such Rs.5,000/-, if the Forum awards the said amount.

            9.  In view of the said admitted facts, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, since it is the duty of the bank to secure the documents deposited with it for obtaining any loans or mortgage or otherwise, so there was dereliction of duty of the bank in securing the mortgage documents bearing No.1834/1997 dt:08.09.1997, which was deposited by the complainant for obtaining loan. Though the loan was discharged finally on 21.09.2015, till date the documents were not returned from the bank and therefore there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Accordingly, this point is answered.

            10.  Point No.(ii):-  in order to answer this point, we have to state that since the opposite party – bank, itself admitted that the title deed bearing No.1834/1997 dt:08.09.1997 was found misplaced while it was under the control of the opposite party – bank, the opposite party – bank has to pay the compensation. According to the opposite party, the compensation must not exceed a maximum limit of Rs.5,000/-. Whereas the complainant’s case on the other hand is that the worth of the building covered by the said sale deed No.1834/1997 is Rs.70 lakhs, but for want of title deed, the buyers are reducing its price by 75%. Another contention of the complainant is that the opposite party failed to sanction loan of Rs.9,00,000/- on reverse mortgage, the complainant could not complete the construction of the building, therefore, he wants to dispose-of, but since the buyers demanding the building for very less price, by reducing its price by 75%, the complainant neither complete the construction of the building nor sell away the property, as such he sustained loss. Therefore, he is demanding to pay Rs.18,00,000/- towards damages for loss of title deed. Awarding compensation for the loss of title deeds because of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, though necessary, such huge claim by the complainant appears to be very abnormal. Similarly, the compensation intended to pay by the opposite party cannot be accepted because it is very meager. In this regard, I am relying on a decision reported in II (2015) CPJ 44 (Kerala) – A Farook & Ors. Vs. Syndicate Bank, Melamury Palakkad & Anr., in which the District Consumer Forum awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the loss of title deed, while it was in the custody of the bank. When the appeal preferred by opposite party – bank, their Lordships Hon’ble Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, enhanced the compensation to Rs.2,00,000/- and also awarded costs of Rs.5,000/-. So, in view of the facts of the decision, we are of the opinion that complainant is entitled to compensation and the opposite party is liable to pay the same. So far as another contention that was raised by the learned counsel for opposite party that the complaint is beyond limitation cannot be accepted, that the loans were pending till 2015, last loan on the same mortgage was cleared by 21.09.2015, whereas this complaint is filed on 04.12.2015. Even though the dispute is with regard to loss of title deed, it was not specifically mentioned anywhere by the opposite party that the loss of title deed was informed to the complainant in the year 2010. Simply his application for loan of Rs.9,00,000/- on reverse mortgage, according to the opposite party was returned with an endorsement that the original sale deed is not accompanied, does not mean that the opposite party has informed that his title deed was misplaced and that apart the appeal preferred by the complainant before the G.M (NW-3) was dismissed on 27.04.2015. Therefore, the claim is not barred by limitation and it is well within the limitation. Accordingly, this point is answered.   

            11.  Point No.(iii):- in view of the discussion on points 1 and 2, we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the opposite party itself admitted the loss of title deeds while it was in their control and therefore the complainant is entitled for compensation and complaint is to be allowed accordingly.

            In the result, complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) towards compensation for the loss of original title deed / sale deed of the complainant bearing No.1834/1997 dt:08.09.1997, and the opposite party also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the litigation. The opposite party further directed to pay comply with the order within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the compensation amount of Rs.30,000/- shall carry interest at 9% p.a. from the date of complaint, till realization.         

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 25^th day of June, 2016.

 

       

Lady Member                                                                                                      President

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant.

 

PW-1: Aloor Narasaiah (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY.

 

RW-1: C. Surya Kumar (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Reminder letter to the Opposite Party for early sanction of reverse mortgage loan as per the application.  Dt: 28.08.2010.
	Second Remainder letter to the Opposite Party for early sanction of reverse mortgage loan as per the application. Dt: 21.10.2010.
	Application under RTI Act addressed to the A.G.M./Public Information Officer, SBI, Tirupati. Dt: 22.12.2010.
	Reply from AGM/Public Information Officer, SBI, Tirupati to the complainant along with enclosures. Dt: 28.12.2010.
	Complainant’s letter to the Opposite Party and another pursuing for the sanction of reverse mortgage loan.  Dt: 03.01.2011.
	Reply from AGM, SBI Zonal Office, Tirupati stating that the document is missing since 2005. Dt: 04.01.2011.
	Complainant’s application to the Opposite Party under RTI Act to furnish certain information with regard to the loan application.  Dt: 07.01.2011.
	Reply from Opposite Party regarding information about housing loan. Dt: 18.01.2011.
	Application under RTI Act from the complainant to the Opposite Party.  Dt: 24.01.2011.
	Reply from Opposite Party for the information sought for under RTI Act.
	Complainant’s letter to AGM, SBI Zonal Office, Tirupati and their reply. Dt: 11.10.2011.
	Photo copy of Letter from the complainant to Opposite Party to return all original documents. Dt: 22.09.2015.
	Photo copy of reply from the Opposite Party closing of loan account of A.Mukund on 21.09.2015.  Dt: 23.09.2015.
	Photo copy of further letter from the Opposite Party to the complainant with reference to his letter dated 22.09.2015. Dt: 17.10.2015.
	Office copy of legal notice to the Opposite Party. Dt: 22.10.2015.
	Letter to the Superintendent of Post Office, Tirupati requesting regarding delivery of registered letter to the Opposite Party. Dt: 14.11.2015.
	Reply to the legal notice from K.Ramanaiah, Advocate. Dt: 16.12.2015.
	Reply by way of rejoinder on behalf of the complainant to Opposite Party. Dt: 24.12.2015.
	Original copy of DTDC Courier Receipt Dt: 25.12.2015. Courier Receipt No. H62522641.
	Photo copy of Delivery Run Sheet. Dt: 28.12.2015.
	Original copy of Certificate of Value of Property given by Sarpanch, Tiruchanur Grama Panchayat, Tirupati Rural, Chittoor Dt.  Dt: 05.03.2016.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY

 

Exhibits   (Ex.B)	Description of Documents
1.	State Bank of India Compensation Policy-2014 (Banking Services) - Review.

 

 

                                                                                                                                                                 

                                                                                                               President

          

 Copies to:-    1.  The complainant.

                        2.  The opposite party.                                          

 

 

 

 

 

 

            // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

                Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.