.BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU. (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF JULY, 2023
PRESENT
SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, LADY MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.494/2015
Smt.Rekha Shivaram,
W/o Sri.D.Shivaram,
Aged about 42 years ….Complainant/s
No.27, 1st Main Road,
Raghavendra Block,
Srinagar, Bangalore-560 050
(By Shri.Nagarjun.N, Advocate)
-Versus-
1. The Managing Director,
Karnataka Bank Ltd,
Head Office, Mahaveera Circle, … Opposite party/s
Kankanady, Mangalore-575 002
2. The Deputy General Manager,
Karnataka Bank Ltd,
Regional Office, 2nd Floor,
Mohan Mansion, Kasturba Road,
Bengaluru – 562 001
3. The Senior Manager/Branch Manager,
Karnataka Bank Ltd,
Raghavanahalli branch,
Bangalore-560 062
4. The General Manager,
Kaveri Grameena Bank,
Head office, CA-20, Vijayanagar
2nd Stage, Mysore-570 017
5. Regional Manager,
Kaveri Grameena Bank,
Regional Office, Region IV,
#221, Manju Mansions, 6th Block,
2nd Stage, 80 feet Ring Road,
Opp: BWSSB office, Nagarabhavi,
Bengaluru-560 072
6. Branch Manager,
Kaveri Grameena Bank,
Banashankari Branch,
Bengaluru-560 070
(OP No.1 to 3-By Sri.Y.V.Parthasarathy, Advocate)
(OP No.4 to 6-By Sri.B.Prasanna Kumar, Advocate)
(OP No.4 to 6 deleted from the record
As per the order dated 01-02-2018)
O R D E R
BY SMT.SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, MEMBER
The complainant filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties alleging deficiency in service and unfair Trade Practice and prays to direct the Opposite Parties to return the original registered sale deed dated 3-5-1982 and Rs.50,00,000/- with interest towards the loss, damages and mental agony and grant such other relief, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is that the complainant is the absolute owner of all that piece and parcel of residential house constructed over site No.27, old no.29/2, PID No.53-57-27, 1st Main Road, Raghavendra block, Srinagar, Bengaluru measuring 1144 sq. ft., the complainant has acquired the same by registered Gift Deed dated 14-11-2006 registered document No.BSG-1-04244-2006-07 and followed by registered rectification deed of gift dated 12-12-2006 registered document No.BSG-1-04822-06-07.
The complainant further submitted that the complainant had approached the Opposite Party No.3 for term loan for the purpose of construction of residential house on property and submitted all the original property documents to Opposite Party No.3 for legal opinion and Opposite Party No.3 has acknowledged the receipt for having received all original property documents from the complainant.
The complainant further submitted that in the legal opinion dated 7-6-2012 given by panel advocate of Opposite Party No.3, it is clearly mentioned that all the property documents, based on which panel advocate has given opinion are original. Further submitted that the Opposite Party No.3 after satisfying with the title of complainant’s property and after compliance of all necessary formalities, had sanctioned to the complainant a term loan of Rs.36,00,000/- on 13-9-2012 and entered into memorandum of deposit of title deeds dated 30-10-2012 in respect of above term loan facility and in the said memorandum of deposit of title deeds, it is clearly mentioned that the Opposite Party No.3 has sanctioned the said term loan to complainant on security of all original property documents.
The complainant further submitted that as the Opposite Party No.6 was lending loan at low interest rate and since complainant needed additional amount for construction of residential house and also believing that Opposite Party No.6 was providing good service to the customers, the complainant has applied to Opposite Party No.6 for taking over of term loan obtained by complainant from Opposite Party No.3.
The complainant further submitted that the Opposite Party No.6 has told the complainant to submit all the copies of property documents and original memorandum of deposit of title deed dated 30-10-2012 entered into between complainant and Opposite Party No.3 to get the legal opinion from panel advocate of Opposite Party No.6 and the complainant has submitted to the Opposite Party No.6 all the copies of property documents and original memorandum of deposit of title deed dated 30-10-2012. It is further submitted that on 13-3-2014 the OP No.6 has issued sanction communication cum term and conditions to complainant and told the complainant that Opposite Party No.6 will pay the term loan with Opposite Party No.3 for Rs.26,53,342/- through demand draft to Karnataka Bank Ltd, Raghuvanahalli branch and collect the original documents from Opposite Party No.3 bank.
The complainant further submitted that when the complainant went to collect the original documents, the Opposite Party No.3 has handed over original property documents except original registered sale deed dated 3-5-1982, executed by M.L.Narayana Shetty in favour of complainant’s husband Sri.Shivaram, registered document No.387/1982-83, book-1, volume-1267, pages 173-175 registered in the office of Sub-registrar, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru. It is further submitted that on enquiry, the Opposite Party No.3 has told the complainant that the said original deed is not found and the Opposite Party No.3 is searching for the same and will be submitted shortly.
The complainant further submitted that when the complainant informed the Opposite Party No.6 about the same, Opposite Party No.6 has told the complainant that let the Opposite Party No.3 return the said original sale deed once it is found and forced the complainant to enter into registered memorandum of deposit of title deeds dated 14-3-2014 without obtaining the said original sale deed from the Opposite Party No.3. It is further submitted that sensing fear and suspicion, the complainant insisted the Opposite Party No.6 to collect the sad original sale deed from the Opposite Party No.3, the Opposite Party No.6 to save his skin, managed to make Opposite Party No.3 to issue undated and unnumbered letter to Opposite Party No.6 and to the complainant stating that the said original sale deed is not found with the Opposite Party No.3 and search is on and will be submitted shortly. It is further submitted that the conduct and acts of the Opposite Party No.3 and 6 amounts to deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable for the same.
The complainant further submitted that due to malafide and negligent act of Opposite Party No.3 and No.6 in misplacing and not collecting the said original sale deed from the Opposite Party No.3, the complainant is suffering a lot mentally, fearing that the prospective buyers of the complainant’s property will diminish the value of the property as the original said sale deed has been lost by Opposite Party No.3 and the same is causing intense mental agony to the complainant. It is further submitted that without rectifying the malafide and negligent act, the Opposite Party o.6 has issued a letter dated 14-2-2015 to the complainant to remit the overdue amount to avoid recovery actions without doing justice to complainant and compensating for loss caused by the Opposite Party No.3 and No.6 to the complainant.
The complainant further submitted that the Opposite Party No.6 after long time sent a letter dated 18-2-2015 to Opposite Party No.3 stating that Opposite Party No.6 has not received the said original sale deed from their end and Opposite Party No.6 requires the said title deed for security of the documents for loan. It is further submitted that the Opposite Party No.6 has issued a sanction communication cum terms and conditions dated 13-3-2014 without collecting the original sale deed.
The complainant further submitted that due to the negligent and carelessness of the Opposite Party No.3 and No.6, the original sale deed dated 3-5-1982 has been lost. It is submitted that the Opposite Party No.5 without authorization forcing and compelling the complainant to pay the loan amount and without authorization has sent notices under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002 for recovery of the loan amount. It is further submitted that the complainant has preferred appeal before the Hon’ble Debts Recovery Tribunal at Bengaluru in that regard. It is further submitted that the complainant has issued legal notice dated 25-7-2015 through her counsel by RPAD to the Opposite Parties calling upon the Opposite Parties to return the original registered sale deed dated 3-5-1982 to the complainant and pay to the complainant Rs.50,00,000/- towards the loss, damages and mental agony with fifteen days from the date of receipt of said notice. It is further submitted that the legal notice dated 25-7-2015 has been served to all the Opposite Parties and the Opposite Party No.4 to 6 have given an untenable and absurd reply through their counsel on 5-8-2015. The Opposite Party No.1 to 3 without compensating the complainant has given an untenable and absurd reply through their counsel on 3-9-2015. The acts of the Opposite Parties amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice and all the Opposite Parties are liable jointly and severally to compensate the complainant. Hence, this complaint is filed.
3. After service of notice, the Opposite Party Nos.1 to 6 has appeared through their counsel and the Opposite Party Nos.4 to 6 filed their version. Version of the Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3 taken as not filed on 13-7-2016. Subsequently the Opposite Party No.3 filed version making an application to receive the version. On 26-8-2016 the version of Opposite Party No.3 was taken on record and the same was adopted by the Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2.
4. The Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3 have admitted the some of the allegations of the complainant but denied all other allegations. The Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3 admitted that the complainant along with her husband approached for a loan for construction of a house bearing No.27, old No.29/2, PID No.53-57-27, situated at 1st Main, Raghavendra Block, Srinagara, Bengaluru at an estimated cost of Rs.45.00 lakhs to the Opposite Party No.3 bank. It is also admitted fact that Sri.A.M.Gajendra of M/s.A.M.Gajendra and Associates advocate gave opinion after going through the documents produced by the complainant and sent the report on 7.6.2012 to the Opposite Party No.3 along with list of documents produced by the complainant before him. Further the Opposite Parties contended that in the said report advocate Sri.A.M.Gajendra referred to the sale deed dated 3-5-1982 executed by Sri.M.L.Narayana Shetty in favour of the husband of the complainant as “Certified copy”, because original of the sale deed has not available with the complainant. Further contended that the documents No.3 produced by the complainant along with her complaint is not identical, but it is a different one. The said document appears to be a fabricated one as it contains total different version relating to the said sale deed. It is further contended that when the document of title were deposited on 30.10.2012 the complainant deposited only a Xerox copy of the certified copy of the sale deed. Upon the Branch Manager of this Opposite Party objecting to the same the complainant promised to deposit the certified copy on the next day. In view of the promise made, the Branch Manager took original of other documents and Xerox copy of certified copy of the sale deed dated 3-5-1982. However the Branch Manager of the Opposite Party No.3 by oversight recorded that original of the said sale deed has been deposited. It is further contended that on 15-3-2014 there was a heavy crowd of customers in the Opposite Party No.3 branch and there was also a murder in the area and stones were hurled towards the branch, insisting to close the branch. On that time the complainant with her husband came to the branch stating that they have sent RTGS on 14-3-2014 to the loan account, discharging the dues and they wanted all the documents of title. The Branch Manager requested them to come on the next working day and collect the documents. However the complainants insisted for return of the documents on that day itself and accordingly the Branch Manager took out the documents from safe custody and delivered the same to the complainant. It is further contended that after lapse of more than 7 month from the date of the said reply, the complainant lodged a complaint dated 29-5-2015 before the Banking Ombudsman; this complaint rejected by the Banking Ombudsman dated 13-7-2015. It is further contended that the complainant filed one more false complaint dated 26-5-2015 before the Human Rights Commission against the Bank and also filed a police complaint against the Opposite Party No.3 bank and also filed a complaint against the Manager of this Opposite Party No.3 bank and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3 and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
5. Meanwhile, the Opposite Party No.3 filed an application for cross examination CW1 and the same was dismissed with permission to file interrogative. The same was filed by the Opposite Party No.3, however the complainant was not answered the interrogative filed by the Opposite Party No.3.
6. The complainant filed affidavit evidence and marked documents as Exs.C1 to C26. The Opposite Party No.3 filed affidavit evidence and marked documents as Exs.R1 to R12 and Opposite Party No.1 and 2 adopted the same.
7. Heard from both sides.
8. On perusal, the following points will arise for our consideration;
(1) Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties?
(2) Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as sought?
(3) What order?
9. The findings to the above points are;
(1) In the affirmative
(2) In the partly affirmative
(3) As per the final order
R E A S O N S
10. Point Nos.1 to 3:- Perused the contents of complaint; objections of the Opposite Parties, affidavit evidence of both parties and materials on records. We noticed that the complainant is the absolute owner of residential house constructed over site No.27, old No.29/2, PID No.53-57-27, 1st Main Road, Raghavendra block, Srinagar, Bengaluru measuring 1144 sq. ft., by registered Gift Deed dated 14-11-2006, No.BSG-1-04244-2006-07 followed by registered rectification deed of gift dated 12-12-2006, No.BSG-1-04822-06-07 as Exs.C1 and C2 and she was approached the Opposite Party No.3 for term loan for the purpose of construction of residential house and for legal opinion submitted all certified copy of the documents to the penal advocate of Opposite Party No.3, Sri.A.M.Gajendra. Sri.A.M.Gajendra submitted detailed report on 7-6-2012 to Opposite Party No.3 as Ex.C3 and Opposite Party No.3 sanctioned a term loan of Rs.36,00,000/- on 13.9.2012. The complainant and Opposite Party No.3 entered into memorandum of deposit of title deed dated 30-10-2012 which was discloses that the Opposite Party No.3 has sanctioned the said term loan to complainant on security of all original property documents as Ex.C4. These all are admitted facts.
11. Perused the contents of complaint of the complainant and the allegations of the complainant is that in spite of submitting all original documents to the Opposite Party No.3 bank and the same was revealed in the memorandum of deposit of title deed dated 30.10.2012. When the complainant repaid the term loan of the Opposite Party No.3 and requested to return the original documents intend to deposit the same for lending loan from the Opposite Party No.6 since she needed additional amount for construction of house. The Opposite Party No.3 returned the original documents except the original sale deed dated 3-5-1982 executed by M.L.Narayana Shetty in favour of complainant’s husband and through this regard the Opposite Party No.3 answered that the said original deed is not found and the Opposite Party No.3 is in searching and will be submitted shortly. Even after issuing the legal notice and filing the police complaint, the Opposite Party No.3 not hand over the original sale deed and now contended that the documents, legal opinion of Sri.A.M.Gajendra produced by the complainant is differ from the documents produced by the Opposite Party No.3 and the said documents are fabricated one with sole intention to harass the Opposite Party No.3.
12. Perused the documents produced by both parties Exs.C3 and R1 dated 7-6-2012, legal opinion of Sri.A.M.Gajendra, advocate which are the same. Only difference is that Ex.C3 column No.2 reveals that the registered sale deed is mentioned as “original” and the same documents produced by the Opposite Party No.3 i.e. Ex.R1 reveals that the registered sale deed is “certified copy”. Moreover in the legal opinion, advocate Sri.A.M.Gajendra stated that the photocopy of documents produced for perusal and directed the complainant to produce the original documents of 1 to 17 referred in the legal opinion and on the basis of legal opinion, the complainant and the Opposite Party No.3 entered into memorandum of deposit of title deed dated 26-10-2012 as Ex.C4 which was registered and which reveals that in column No.2 registered sale deed is “original”. However the Opposite Party No.3 in his objection stated that the complainant had not deposited the original sale deed dated 3-5-1982 to the Opposite Party No.3 bank because the same was not available with the complainant, hence furnished the Xerox copy/photocopy of the certified copy and when the Opposite Party No.3 objected, the complainant promised to deposit the same on the next date and the branch manager of Opposite Party No.3 by over side/mistake recorded that the original of sale deed has been deposited, we do not agree with the contention of the Opposite Party No.3 because without verifying the documents why did the Opposite Party No.3 sanctioned the loan to the complainant. The complainant has produced Ex.C4, registered mortgage deed which mentioned that the property was mortgaged by depositing the original sale deed. The complainant has proved her allegations by producing the documents. However the Opposite Party No.3 disputed the legal opinion of Sri.A.M.Gajendra, then burden is shifted on Opposite Party No.3 to prove that the legal opinion document produced by complainant is fabricated one. Moreover the Opposite Party No.3 has not produced any relevant documents to show that, the complainant has not submitted the original sale deed, but he has submitted certified copy of the sale deed except opinion of the advocate Mr.G.M.Gajendra. However the opinion document is not registered documents. Mere contention that the complainant has not submitted the original sale deed is not sufficient. Without collecting the original sale deed how did the Opposite Party No.3 sanction the loan to the complainant? At the time of granting the loan, the bank keeps all the original documents with them and executed the memorandum of deposit title deed and return the same after the loan was fully paid. Hence, as per minimum standards of banking procedures, the bank should return the original documents collected from the loan borrower. In case of lost, the bank has to help to take duplicates at its own costs because it is an important vital document. Moreover, it would be very difficult to the owner of the property to the mortgage the property further and take the loan without the original documents also it is difficult to sell the property without original sale deed. The value of the property is bound to be affected if the original sale deed had been lost. Moreover perused the order sheet we noticed that as per the memo dated 1-7-2018 filed by the complainant for deletion of the Opposite Party Nos.4 to 6, this Commission has deleted the name of the Opposite Party Nos.4 to 6. Hence, we have not considered the objections filed by the Opposite Party Nos.4 to 6.
13. Hence, considering the facts discussion made here, we are of the opinion that, the complainant has proved deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3 and accordingly the complaint is partly allowed.
14. Point No.4: In view of above discussion, we proceed to pass the following:-
O R D E R
The complaint is partly allowed with litigation cost of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant.
The Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3 are directed to return the original sale deed to the complainant and in case the Opposite Parties are unable to found, lodge FIR with the police authorities, put an advertisement in local news paper regarding the loss of sale deed and issue indemnity bond to the complainant and provide certified copy of sale deed.
Further the Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3 are directed to pay compensation Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs.Five lakhs only) to the complainant towards deficiency in service, negligence, mental agony etc.
Further the Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3 is directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Failing which, the payable amount shall carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of default till realization.
Send a copy of this order to both parties.
MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Jrk/
