BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 81/2009 Filed on 07.04.2009

Dated : 15.05.2010

Complainant:

Stani Jacob, S/o Jacob Periera, New Helen's House, Thyvilakom, Vallakkadavu, Valiyathura, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. V. Shaji)

Opposite parties :

1. The General Manager, Syndicate Bank, Manipal, Karnataka.

    

2. The Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, Kochuveli Branch, Vettukadu, Travancore Titanium P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. P.P. Balakrishnan Nair)

This O.P having been heard on 16.04.2010, the Forum on 15.05.2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER

Complainant had availed a housing loan from the opposite party bank in the year 2002, the Housing Loan No. was OSL/HL/217/2002. At the time of obtaining loan the complainant produced his original title deed and other documents related to his property before the bank. The account was settled and the entire amount was paid on 16.10.2007. After the closure of the loan account the complainant demanded back his title deed No. 1053 of 2002 given as a security for the above said loan. The 2^nd opposite party requested more time to trace the document. On 20.11.2007, the petitioner sent a legal notice to the 2^nd opposite party. Then the complainant filed a petition before the Regional Manager of the Bank and he sent a reply to the complainant on 27.11.2007 stating that the document deposited as security has been lost and branch could not locate the same. On 23.12.2008 the 2^nd opposite party issued a certificate in favour of the complainant stating that the original title deed No. 1053/02 of 10 cents of property situated at Kadakampally village in Survey No. 2623 is misplaced and yet to be traced. The complainant alleges that this certificate clearly shows there is clear negligence on the part of the 2^nd opposite party and is also vicariously liable to the 1^st opposite party. Through this complaint, the complainant claims Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for his mental agony.

In this case the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties, Syndicate Bank filed their version. In their version they admitted the transaction and also admitted that the complainant has closed the loan account. The opposite parties stated that after closing the loan all the documents other than the title deed were returned to the complainant. As per the demand of the complainant the opposite parties made an attempt to find out the title deed, but it was not found out and therefore the opposite parties made arrangements with the Sub Registrar to get a certified copy of the document by paying all expenses for the same and the same was given to the complainant and also the opposite parties had given a certificate stating that the said document is not traceable. Hence there is no purposeful misbehaviour or negligence or deficiency from the side of opposite parties as alleged by the complainant. Hence the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

In this case complainant and opposite parties filed affidavits. The complainant has produced 3 documents which were marked as Exts. P1 to P3.

Points that would arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there has been deficiency in service or negligence occurred from the side of opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs and costs?

Points (i) & (ii):- Complainant had produced his original title deed No. 1053/02 before the opposite party's bank for availing a house loan. The complainant closed the loan account on 16.10.2007. But the opposite parties did not return the original title deed. The opposite parties in this case admitted the above stated facts of the case. The opposite parties stated that the title deed was misplaced from their custody and they could not trace out the same till now. Their contention is that they have made arrangements with the Sub Registrar to get a certified copy of the document by paying all expenses for the same and the same was given to the complainant and the bank had given a certificate stating that the said document is not traceable. To prove the contentions of the complainant, he has filed proof affidavit and examined him as PW1. From his side 3 documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P3. Ext. P1 is the copy of advocate notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party, on 20.11.2007, demanding to give back the sale deed No. 1053/02. Ext. P2 is the letter issued by opposite party's Regional Bank to the complainant stating that the document has been lost and they could not locate the same in spite of best effort from their side. Ext. P3 is the certificate issued by the 1^st opposite party. Through these documents the complainant has clearly proved his case. From these documents itself we can conclude that there is negligence and deficient service from the side of opposite parties. It is the duty of the opposite parties to keep the valuable documents like the title deeds in safe custody and to return the documents to the customers when the transactions were closed. In this case there is clear negligence from the side of opposite parties. For a title holder title deed is the most valuable one. Everyone knows the importance of original deeds. Nowadays it is very essential for availing a loan. The act of the opposite parties had not only caused the complainant to suffer a great deal of mental agony but also deprived him of his right to use the deed for future transactions. Though the loss cannot be commuted in terms of money, the complainant has to be compensated for the sufferings he had to undergo. The misplacement of the document is sufficient proof of their negligence and deficiency in their service. Hence the opposite parties are liable to compensate their act. Hence the complaint is allowed.

In the result, the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant as compensation. Opposite parties shall also pay Rs. 2,000/- as costs. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of the order. Thereafter 9% annual interest shall be paid to the entire amount till realization.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 15^th day of May 2010.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 81/2009

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - Stani Jacob

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of advocate notice issued by the complainant to opposite

party on 20.11.2007.

P2 - Letter issued by opposite party.

P3 - Certificate issued by 1^st opposite party.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

DW1 - Francis Borgia

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT