DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE
PRESENT : Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT
Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) : MEMBER
Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER Thursday the 29th day of September 2022
C.C. 308/2018
Complainant
K. V.Sajuraj
S/o K.V. Venugopal,
1/3444, Sreenivas,
West Hill. P.O,
Calicut – 673 005
(By Adv. Sri. Sivaramakrishnan & Adv. Sri. Akshay Kamath)
Opposite Party
The South Indian Bank,
Represented by Branch Manager
West Hill Branch, Al Zahra Plaza,
Chakkarothukulum,
Nadakkavu. P.O,
Calicut – 673 006,
(By Adv. Sri. K. T. Vikas)
ORDER
By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN – PRESIDENT.
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:
The complainant had availed a loan from the opposite party bank mortgaging the property covered by Jenmam Assignment deed number 2832/1995. The said original Jenmam Assignment deed was mortgaged in the Bank. The loan was closed on 12/08/2009. But the original title deed was not returned by the bank in spite of repeated requests. On 12/04/2018 the bank issued a letter to the complainant stating that the original title deed is misplaced in some other files and promised to return the same at the earliest.
3. On 19/06/2018 complainant issued a lawyer notice to the bank demanding return of the document. The bank issued a reply admitting the fact that the document has been misplaced. The complainant wants to avail an educational loan for his son and for that purpose he is in urgent need of the document. The act of the opposite party in misplacing the document and not returning the same amounts to deficiency of service and it has caused both mental agony and monetary loss to the complainant. In the absence of original title deed, the value of the property will be reduced in the market and prospective buyer will not approach to buy the property. Hence the complaint to direct the opposite party to return the document and to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-
4. The opposite party resisted the complaint by filing written version. They have admitted the availing of the loan by the complainant by mortgaging the property by deposit of original Jenmam Assignment Deed Number 2832/95. The closure of the loan is admitted. The complainant has not claimed back the document till 2018. It was his duty to collect back the document as and when the loan was closed. On search by the opposite party, the document was found to be misplaced and accordingly a letter was given to the complainant. The lawyer notice was duly replied. They are ready to offer certified copy of the title deed and issue a certificate. The complainant has not suffered any loss or mental agony. The compensation claimed is exorbitant. It is, therefore, prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
5. The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;
(1). whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party, as alleged?
(2) Whether the claim for compensation is allowable? If so, what is the quantum?
(3). Reliefs and costs.
6. Evidence consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exts A1 to A4 and A5 series on the side of the complainant. The opposite party has not let in any evidence.
7. We heard both sides.
8. Point No.1 and 2 : The complainant herein has approached this Commission alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party bank for the reason that the original title deed of his property which was deposited in the bank for creating an equitable mortgage in connection with a loan availed by him was not returned even after closing the loan and in spite of repeated demands and even after the issuance of lawyer notice.
9. The complainant is seeking compensation from the opposite party to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- due to reduction in the market value of the property and also for the mental agony and hardship suffered. The complainant has got himself examined as PW1. PW1 has filed proof affidavit and deposed in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim.
10. The opposite party has admitted that the document has been misplaced and not returned to the complainant despite having closed the loan as early as on 12/08/2009. This is further evidence by Ext A1 certificate issued by the bank. So there is no dispute regarding the misplacement of the document which ipso facto proclaims the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. No further proof is required to establish deficient service of the opposite party.
11. It cannot be disputed that the value of the property will be adversely affected if the original title deed is not available. Ordinarily no one will come forward to purchase a property at the prevailing market value if the original title deed is not available. The possibility of misuse of the title deed also cannot be ruled out. The complainant may not be able to avail loan facilities by deposit of title deed of the property. The certified copy may not suffice. Even a bank may not be willing to give loan against an immovable property without original title deed deposited with it. The complainant is entitled to be compensated for the reduction in the market value of the property and also for the mental agony and hardship suffered by him. The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in order dated 20/02/2017 in First Appeal No. 288/2014 (Secretary/Manager, Mayyanad Regional Co-operative Bank Vs Ebrahimkutty) and in order dated 03/01/2020 in Revision Petition 2732/2019 (State Bank of India Vs Amithesh Majumdar) has confirmed the decisions appealed against holding that for loss of title deed, the consumer is entitled to be compensated adequately. The complainant in this case has claimed Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the compensation claimed is reasonable. The complainant is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation and also Rs.5000/- as cost of the proceedings from the opposite party.
12. Point No.3: In the light of the finding on the above points, the complaint is disposed of as follows;
a) CC- 308/2018 is allowed.
b) The opposite party bank is hereby directed to return the original Jenmam Assignment Deed No. 2832/1995 of SRO West-Hill to the complainant within one month from today, failing which, the complainant is entitled to realise a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 ( Rupees Two lakh only) with interest at rate of 6% p.a from the date of the complaint ie 05/11/2018 till realisation from the opposite party bank.
c) The opposite party is hereby directed to issue a certificate to the complainant to the effect that the original title deed is lost, if they are unable to return the original title deed.
d) The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- as cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 29th day of September, 2022.
Date of Filing: 05/11/2018.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/- MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant :
Ext. A1 – Copy of the certificate issued by the bank.
Ext. A2 – Lawyer notice 19/06/2018.
Ext. A3 – Lawyer notice dated 19/06/2018.
Ext. A4 – Arrangement letter for term loan under education loan
schemes.
Ext. A5 series :-
Receipt dated 01/02/2019.
Receipt dated 21/12/2017.
Receipt dated 17/03/2016.
Receipt dated 31/03/2016.
Receipt dated 25/01/2017.
Receipt dated 11/08/2016.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party
Nil.
Witnesses for the Complainant
PW1 – K. V. Sajuraj (Complainant)
Witnesses for the opposite parties
Nil.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
Forwarded / By Order
Sd/-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
