IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 09th day of September, 2021
Filed on 11.03.2020
Present
1. Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar, Bsc.LLB(President)
2. Smt. Sholy P.R.BA, LLB(Member)
In
CC/No.71/2020
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Smt. Rema Nair 1. IDBI Bank
W/o Muraleedharan Nair Alappuzha Branch
Remanika Represented by its
Vadackal.P.O Branch Manager
Alappuzha (Adv. Sri. P.K.Mathew)
(Adv. Sri.P.S.Anaghan)
O R D E R
SRI. S. SANTHOSH KUMAR (PRESIDENT)
Complaint filed u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986
Material averments briefly discussed are as follows:-
The complainant in the year 2013 availed a housing loan from the opposite party bank vide loan account No. 0305675100001120 by depositing title deeds along with other documents. The bank had assured that the same will be kept in safe custody. Complainant was repaying the loan regularly. Complainant received a letter dated.5/10/2019 where in it was stated that the above mentioned original title deed and other documents pertaining to the property of the complainant deposited with the bank were lost on a fire occurred at the storage premises. The above act of the opposite party amounts to grave deficiency in service and dereliction of duty. The act of the opposite party had caused immeasurable damage, loss and hardships to the complainant. Hence the complaint is filed for realizing an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for the loss, damage and hardships and for a direction to make a publication in a prominent daily news paper and for issuing a certificate acknowledging the nature of loss of original title deed.
2. Opposite party bank filed a version mainly contenting as follows:-
The petition is not maintainable and it is frivolous, vexatious, and scandalous. There is no defective service on the part of the bank. Complainant had availed a loan and as collateral security for the same he had deposited her title deed namely original of the sale deed No.591/2008 dated. 1/2/2008 of Alleppey SRO. The bank had made arrangement for keeping the same with Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd. (SHCIL) which is a body of keeping safe custody of the title deeds.
3. On 11/12/2017 a major fire broke out in the basement of the building by which several documents including title deeds were burnt to fire. The matter was duly communicated to the complainant. The bank had intimated their willingness to issue a Bankers Certificate along with a certified copy which will serve the purpose as it will be treated as original for all purposes. There is no defective service or dereliction of duty on the part of the bank. The complaint is illmotivated. Compensation claimed is highly exorbitant and not based on any factual foundation. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with compensatory cost.
4. On the above pleading following points were raised for consideration:-
1. Whether the complainant is entitled to realize an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get a direction against the opposite party for publication of the matter in news paper as prayed for?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get a certificate as prayed for?
4. Reliefs and cost
5. Evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of PW1and Ext.A1 from the side of the complainant and the oral evidence of RW1 from the side of the opposite party. Ext.B1 to B5 were marked during the cross examination of PW1.
6. Point No. 1 to3:-
PW1, complainant had availed a housing loan from the opposite party bank during 2013 by depositing title deeds. She was regularly repaying the loan. While so she received Ext.A1 letter dated 5/10/2019 stating that her title deeds were kept at the Stock Holding Document Management Services Limited(SMDL) and it was irrecoverably lost in a fire occurred there. Since the original title deed was lost complainant will not be able to sell the property or mortgage the same. According to her it was due to the negligent act of the opposite party the title deeds were lost and so she filed the complaint claiming an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation along with other reliefs such as publication of the matter in a prominent daily news paper and for issuing a certificate acknowledging the nature of loss. Opposite party bank filed version contenting that documents were kept under the safe custody of Stock Holding Corporation India Limited (SHCIL) and a fire broke out on 11/12/2017 at the basement of the building by which the title deeds were irrecoverably lost. It was intimated to the complainant and the bank is ready to give a certified copy along with certificate. According to them the compensation claimed is exorbitant and there was no defective service or dereliction of duty from their part. Complainant got examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 was marked. During her cross examination Ext.B1 to B5 were marked. The relationship manager of the opposite party bank was examined as RW1.
7. The fact that PW1 availed a housing loan from the opposite party bank by depositing title deeds is not in disputes. As per Ext.A1 letter the bank intimated the complainant that her title deeds were lost in a fire occurred at the Stock Holding Management Services Ltd. Mumbai were the title deeds were kept. Ext.B1 is the copy of complaint and preferred by M/s Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd. before the police and the copy of ‘Panchanama’ prepared by the Asst. Sub Inspector of Police on 26/12/2017. So from Ext.B1 it is crystal clear that a fire broke out at the sotck holding corporation Ltd and the matter was informed to the police and Panchanama was prepared. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party bank is that it was not due to any negligence or deficiency in service from the part of opposite party bank. The documents were kept under the safe custody of Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd. and unfortunately it was irrecoverably lost in a fire which broke out there. Per contra the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the complainant is that since the original title deeds are lost PW1 may not be able to sell the property for its market value. Further no financial institution including the opposite party bank will grant a loan without original title deed. In said circumstances PW1 has sustained heavy loss and so the bank is liable to compensate her. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant relied upon a decision of the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission in Revision Petition No. 2732 of 2019 dated.3/1/2020 (State Bank of India Vs. Amithesh Mazumder). On going through the facts of the case it is seen that it was a similar case. It was held
“even if all the steps suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner are taken by the petitioner bank that would not result in the complainant realizing the true market value of the immovable property in question, if he decides to sell the same in the market. No one in the market will agree to purchase an immovable property on payment of its prevailing market value, if he knows that the original Title Deed of the property will not be delivered to him by the seller. There will always be an apprehension of the misuse of the Title Deeds of the immovable property by an unscrupulous person, by depositing the same with a bonafide lender, since an Equitable Mortgage can be created by deposit of the Title Deeds. The erosion in the value of the property if it is to be sold without the Title Deeds, would be substantial and in fact even the compensation awarded by the District Forum and maintained by the State Commission may not be sufficient to make up such erosion in the market value of the property. Moreover, if the complainant decides to take a loan by deposit of the Title Deeds of the property against the property, he will not be able to get a ready lender in the market unless the Title Deeds of the property are deposited. In fact, even a bank may be unwilling to give a loan against an immovable property unless the Title Deeds of the property are deposited with it. Therefore the compensation awarded by the fora below was eminently justified on account of the petitioner bank having lost the Title Deeds of the immovable property of the complainant.”
In the above case considered by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission the title deed was misplaced and the bank was unable to return the same. But here in this case it has come out in evidence that the title deed was irrecoverably lost by a fire. All other facts are similar.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant pointed out that the property is situated near National Highway at Paravoor Village. No evidence is available to prove the market value of the property. Ext.B4 is the Certificate of Encumbrance On Property issued by the Registration Department on 24/2/2020. From Ext.B4 it is seen that complainant purchased the property on 15/5/2007 for an amount of Rs. 72,000/-. Now we are in 2021 and the value of the property has increased several times. Since no other evidence is available to show the market value of the property, we are of the opinion that Rs.72,000/- by which PW1 purchased the property during 2007 will be adequate compensation.
9. The bank will also publish the fact of loss of the original title deed with full description in two leading daily news papers one in English and other in Malayalam. They will also furnish certified copy of title deeds and also a certificate showing the loss of title deed in their custody. These points are found accordingly.
10. Point No.4:-
In the result complaint is allowed in part.
A) Complainant is allowed to realize an amount of Rs. 72,000/- from the opposite party bank as compensation
B) Opposite party bank will publish the fact of loss of original title deed with full description in two daily news papers one in English and other in Malayalam.
C) The bank will issue certificate showing the fact of loss of title deed from their custody.
D) Complainant is allowed to realize an amount of Rs.2000/- as cost.
The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 9th day of September, 2021.
Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar(President)
Sd/-Smt. Sholy.P.R(Member)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Complainant)
Ext.A1 - Letter dtd.5/10/2019
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Antony Fernandez (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Copy of complaint
Ext.B2 - Sale Deed
Ext.B3 - Sale Deed
Ext.B4 - Certificate of Encumbrance on property
Ext.B5 - Bank Certificate/ NOC/Closure Certificate
// True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Senior Superintendent
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
