Sri Kamal De, President

In a short compass, case of the Complainant, is that he availed of loan from the OP Bank being Loan Account no. 606825 by mortgaging one of his Sale Deeds bearing registration no. I-2990/2011.  It is the case of the Complainant that he repaid the entire loan amount within the stipulated period on 15-12-2015 and accordingly, the OP bank issued one “No Dues and No Objection Certificate” on 14-01-2016.  However, it is alleged that, despite repeated follow ups, the bank is loath to return his original sale deed.  Finally, the Manager of OP Bank wrote a letter to him on 24-12-2015 disclosing thereby that the concerned land deed got displaced in another file and sought 15 days’ time to locate the same.  Hence, this case.

Appearing to defend its case, the OP has admitted that the Complainant has repaid the entire loan within the stipulated time on 15-12-2015 and further that it issued “No Dues and No Objection Certificate” in favour of the Complainant on 14-01-2016.  However, it has denied that it issued any letter to the Complainant on 24-12-2015 admitting therein that the concerned land deed got displaced to another file.  It also denied any deficiency in service on its part over the matter.

Let us decide, whether failure to return the Sale Deed to the Complainant amounts to deficiency in service, or not.

Decision with reasons

We have carefully gone through the documents on record.  Admittedly, Complainant took a loan from the OP, namely, “M. T. Salary Earners (Indi)” vide Loan Account no. 606825 for which he deposited one of his sale deeds bearing registration no. I-2990 of 2011, registered before the Additional District Sub-Registrar at Bhupatinagar.  Also admitted is the fact that the Complainant repaid the entire loan amount within the stipulated time on 15-12-2015 and that the OP issued “No Dues and No Objection Certificate” in favour of the Complainant on 14-01-2016.

Curiously, on one hand, the OP has denied issuing any letter to the Complainant on 24-12-2015 whereof it allegedly admitted its fault and on the other, it has not placed on record any documentary proof to show that it returned the original Sale Deed in question to the Complainant.  A bare eye view of the signature as appended in the letter dated 24-12-2015 vis-à-vis 14-01-2016, however, reveals no disparity. Clearly, the OP has not approached this Forum with clear hands.  

Even for the sake of argument if it is assumed that the OP has not issued any letter on 24-12-2015, that does not diminish its liability in any manner insofar as it has failed to brought on record any cogent documentary proof to establish that it returned the land paper which it admittedly took from the Complainant at the time of disbursing the concerned loan.   

The quality and standard of service has to be tested on the anvil of definition provided by Sec. 2(1)(g) which means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. While OP has candidly admitted the fact of receiving the concerned Sale Deed from the Complainant, non-return of the same certainly proves shortcomings/fault/ imperfection/inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which it was supposed to maintain but failed. 

In our considered opinion, the Complainant has successfully proved that the documents got misplaced due to negligence on the part of the OP. This itself constitutes deficiency of service on the part of the bank because the bank was under legal obligation to return the document which it had received from the complainant.  Failure to return mortgage paper is a clear case of deficiency in service for which the consumer is entitled for compensation besides getting back the land paper.  It is stated by the Complainant that he requires the Sale Deed for mutation purpose.  As we find, thanks to the careless conduct of concerned official of the OP, the Complainant has been suffering so long.

We, therefore, deem it fit and proper to direct the OP to (1) lodge FIR regarding loss of Sale Deed (2) give public notice in a widely circulated local newspaper regarding loss of Sale Deed and (3) take necessary steps to return the original Deed bearing no.1-2990 of 2011 dtd. 14.09.2011 and in case the Deed cannot be traced out, to arrange and ensure the Complainant gets duplicate copy of Sale Deed from the concerned authority forthwith (4) bear entire incidental costs in this regard (5) pay compensation and litigation cost to the Complainant.

Consequently, the instant case succeeds.

Hence,

ORDERED

that C. C. No. 22/2016 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP.  OP is directed to return the original Deed bearing no.1-2990 of 2011 dtd. 14.09.2011 and in case the Deed cannot be traced out, to ensure and arrange issuance of duplicate Sale Deed in favour of the Complainant through the concerned authorities in the manner as laid down hereinabove within 40 days hence and pay compensation and litigation cost of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 10,000/-, respectively, to the Complainant within the aforesaid stipulated period failing which, the Complainant may initiate execution proceedings against the OP in accordance with law and in that case, OP shall be liable to pay fine @ Rs. 100/- per diem from this date till compliance of this order in toto.