D.o.F:14/02/2013
D.o.O:24/1/2014
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.NO.54/13
Dated this, the 24th day of January 2014
PRESENT:
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : PRESIDENT
SMT.BEENA K.G : MEMBER
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL : MEMBER
Mrs. Safiya Ibrahim, W/o Ibrahim, :
R/at Moodambail House of Thekkil
Village and Post, Kasaragod. : Complainant
(Adv.Naveen S.N)
1. The Manager, :
Vijaya Bank, Chattanchal Branch,
Thekkil Village and Post, Kasaragod.
2. The Senior Manager,
Vijaya Bank, Kasaragod Branch, : Opposite parties
Kasaragod.
(Adv.K.N.Shetty)
ORDER
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : PRESIDENT
The facts of the complaint in brief are that the complainant has availed a mortgage loan from opposite party No.1 by depositing original settlement deed No.1167/1989 SRO, Kasaragod dt. 9/6/1989 on 13/5/1995 which was renewed periodically and the complainant has made arrangements to dispose off the properties covered in the document and after obtaining the advance she closed the loan availed from opposite party and consequent to the closure of the loan, a letter dt. 5/9/12 addressed to the opposite party No.2 was given by opposite party No.1 requesting to deliver the original title deed to the complainant and accordingly the complainant has approached opposite party No.2 for obtaining her original title deed and to the surprise of the complainant, 2nd opposite party has failed to deliver the original title deeds in spite of repeated request and consequent to the delay in delivering the original deed the prospective buyer of the properties has withdrew from the proposed sale and who is demanding returns of the advance amount and thereafter the complainant has caused to sent a lawyer notice to opposite parties requesting them to return the original documents but the opposite parties failed to return back the document. Hence this complaint is filed for necessary reliefs alleging deficiency in service against opposite parties.
2. On service of notice from this Forum opposite parties entered in appearance and filed their version. The opposite parties admits all the averments in the complaint and submitted that the original title deed mortgaged by the complainant is misplaced and prayed 6 months time for tracing out the title deed.
3. The complainant filed proof affidavit and Exts.A1 to A4 marked. Opposite parties have not adduced either oral or documentary evidence. Heard both sides and document perused.
4. On going through the entire facts of the case it is admitted by the opposite parties that the documents were missing. That amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
In Canara Bank vs. Jain Motor Trading Company the Hon’ble National Commission observed that if there was some delay on the part of complainant Bank could have charged interest on the same instead of not releasing property documents once it had accepted entire amount due from complainant as per condition of OTS- amounts to deficiency in service.
On the light of the above decision it is clear that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Then the question to be answered in such circumstance is whether the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant and what is the quantum of compensation.
In Abdul Hazeez vs State Bank of Hyderabad the Hon’ble National Commission decided that non return of documents after recovery of entire loan and documents missing from court and could not be returned , compensation awarded.
While deciding the above case the Hon’ble National Commission considered the view of the Supreme Court in Charan Singh vs Healing Touch Hospital and others 2000 SAR (Civil) 935 that the compensation to be awarded is to be fair and reasonable . Here the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:
‘While quantifying damages, consumer forums are required to make an attempt to serve ends of justice so that compensation is awarded, in an established case, which not only serves the purpose of recompensing the individual, but which also at the same time aims to bring about a qualitative change in the attitude of the service provider. Indeed calculation of damages depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be laid down for universal application. While awarding compensation, a Consumer Forum has to take into account all relevant factors and assess compensation on the basis of accepted legal principles, on moderation. It is for the Consumer Forum to grant compensation to the extent it finds it reasonable, fair and proper in the facts and circumstances of a given case according to established judicial standards where the claimant is able to establish his charge’.
In the above case the document is missing from the court. But in the present case the document is missing from the premises of the 2nd opposite party. From that itself we can imagine the negligent act of 2nd opposite party and liable to compensate the complainant
Here the complainant eventhough pleaded in the complaint that he made arrangements to dispose off the properties covered in the document he failed to produce a single paper regarding that aspect.
Therefore taking into consideration the decisions of the Hon’ble apex courts and the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that the complainant is eligible for compensation and reasonable compensation is Rs. 2,00,000/-.
Hence the complaint is allowed opposite parties 1&2 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakhs only) to the complainant as compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the proceedings. Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
Exts:
A1-5/9/12-letter issued from OP to complainant
A2-10-1-13- office copy of lawyer notice
A3&A4-Postal acknowledgments
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
eva
