| Final Order / Judgement | CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area (Behind Qutub Hotel) New Delhi – 110016 Case No.93/2016 - SATISH KUMAR DHINGRA
EA-256, MAYA ENCLAVE, HARI NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110064 - HEMLATA DHINGRA
EA-256, MAYA ENCLAVE, HARI NAGAR, NEW DELHI- 110064 …..COMPLAINANTS Vs. - UNION BANK OF INDIA
THROUGH CHARIMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR UNION BANK BHAVAN, 239, VIDHAN BHAVAN MARG, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400021 …..OPPOSITE PARTY NO.1 - UNION BANK OF INDIA
SUNDER NAGAR BRANCH THROUGH CHIEF MANAGER 52, SUNDER NAGAR, NEW DELHI- 110003…..OPPOSITE PARTY NO.2 Date of Institution-03.03.2016 Date of Order- 04.11.2022 O R D E R RASHMI BANSAL– Member - Present complaint has been filed by the complainants against OP on account of deficiency in services on their part in misplacing the original title deed of their property and seeking compensation for suffering of mental harassment, agony and torture along with litigation cost.
- It is the case of the complainant that they have obtained a housing loan bearing number 344906650000920 for an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- from OP2, which is a branch office of OP1, on 24.07.2008. To secure the loan the complainant had hypothecated their residential property at New Delhi and deposited the original title deeds of the said property with the OP. The whole loan amount was fully repaid by the complainants by October 2014. However, the OP failed to return the property documents in respect of the aforesaid hypothecated property to the complainant. The complainant persistently followed up with the OPs for return of the original title deed and other documents submitted by them at the time of obtaining the housing loan vide his email dated 25.12.2014, Ex. CW1/1, letter dated 19.01.2015, Ex. CW1/2, but the OPs failed to locate the same. Receiving no response from OP2, the complainants were forced to travel to Mumbai at their own expense to meet General Manager and Dy. General Manager for the redressal of their grievances, but all went in vain. OP2, vide its letter dated 04.02.2015, Ex. CW1//3, intimated complainants that they are trying to locate the misplaced documents of the complainant and requested for a week time to locate the original documents, however, documents were not found. Thereafter, vide letter dated 15.02.2015, Ex. CW1/4, OP2 admitted that title deed of the property of the complainant is misplaced and cannot be located and assured the complainant to give certified copies of the title deed, FIR, cutting of News Paper Publication certificate of loss of title deed by branch manager. The OPs were also agreed to bear the cost and expenses incurred in obtaining the duplicate documents/title deeds.
- The complainant on 21.04.2015 had lodged a complaint number 201415014010651 with the banking ombudsman for the redressal of their grievance and on 16.06.2015 vide email dated 16.06.2015, Ex. CW1/5, banking ombudsman stated that OPs have been deficient in rendering services and immediate steps be taken to arrange for the certified copies of the lost documents to the complainant at the expense of OP and further directed OPs to pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant. The complainant had rejected this compensation finding it unreasonable, unjustified and unacceptable vide his email dated 06.7.2015, Ex. CW1/6. However, despite such rejection, the OP deposited the above stated amount in the account of complainant.
- The complainant submits that the market value of the complainant’s property has suffered a huge reduction of about 10% to 20%. The property value appointed by the OPs valued the property worth Rs. 60.20 lakhs as per the valuation report dated 19.07.2008, Annexure 1, and Rs.1.25 Cr. as per the certificate dated 20.10.2017, Annexure 2, issued by Aakar realtors, real estate agents operating in the NCR region in sale and purchase of residential and commercial properties.
- The complainants submit that they have apprehensions about the mis-use of the original title deeds if they fall into the hands of third-party or miscreants. Legal notice dated 09.09.2015, Ex. CW1/7, sent to OPs by complainant asking them to pay a compensation of Rs.19,50,000/- towards the loss suffered in market value of the property, mental and physical harassment, trauma and lifelong risk of mis use of original title deed and other documents by the third-party, however, OP did not reply to the same. The complainants submit that the OP have demonstrated the grossest kind of deficiency by negligently misplacing the original title deed of the complainants. The complainants further submit that they are also deprived of all the prospects of financial assistance in future as banks do not extend loans without the original title deeds. Complainant has relied upon order in ‘Sunil Chaturvedi versus Bank of India, CC 12/2007’, by Jaipur CDRC, ‘Captain Vikram Vijay Apandkar vs IDBI Bank, appeal no. A/12/792’, by Mumbai State Commission’, ‘UCO Bank vs Arvind Kumar Singh, appeal 288/2015’ by Chandigarh State Commission, and ‘N. Manohar Reddy versus happy farm and resorts, rev. petition no. 3025 – 3027/2011, NCDRC ’. In addition to this, complainants state that the compensation of meagre amount of Rs. 20,000/- does not commensurate with the degree of deficiency due to the negligent act of OP, complainants are placed in an extremely disadvantageous position, as the market value property is reduced to 10% to 20% as corroborated by the certificate issued by Hacker realtors, real estate agents operating in NCR, therefore the complainants are entitled to the amount of compensation which would commensurate with the degree of deficiency and extent of loss suffered. Complainants submit that are old citizens nearly 60 years old and underwent immense mental trauma by the gross irresponsible behavior of OP, praying that they should be compensated in a fair and equitable manner, as banking ombudsman has failed to judiciously apply his mind to the facts of the case and turned a blind eye against the serious ramification of the gross negligent act by the OP. The complainant prays for a compensation of Rs.18,00,000/- towards average reduction in the market value (15%) of the property plus expenses incurred by the complainant for travelling to Mumbai to meet the senior officials of the OP, a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- towards mental harassment, trauma and agony suffered by the complainant, and an amount of Rs.35,000/- towards litigation expenses.
- OP has contested the case by filing reply, evidence by way of affidavit and written arguments through power of attorney, Ex. OP/W1, and contended that complainants have not approached the Commission with clean hands and the present complaint is liable to be dismissed as there is no cause of action arose against the OP. It is submitted that before approaching this commission the complainant has already approached banking ombudsman for resolving his complaint regarding loss of his original documents from the custody of OP and banking ombudsman has directed the OP vide email dated 16.06.2015, Ex. OP/W2, to provide the certified copies of lost documents to the complainant along with the compensation of Rs. 20,000/-, which order has been complied by OP and an amount of Rs.20,000 has been deposited in bank account of the complainant on 30.06.2015. A copy of the letter dated 13.07.2015, Ex. OP/W3, filed by OP whereby OP has mentioned the list of documents deposited by the complainant and are held in their record. OP has also stated that as per the RBI internal rules issued vide circular number 10032 dated 25.08.2014, the OP has already taken the remedial steps and in order to settle the grievance of the complainants has also provided certified copy of the title deed, lodged FIR regarding loss of the title deed in police station on 28.01.2015, published notice regarding loss of the title deed in Indian Express Delhi dated 03.02.2015 and Jan Satta Delhi dated 03.02.2015, Ex. OP/W4 - OP/W6. OPs stated that as per memorandum of entry dated 25.07.2008, Ex. OP/W7, only original conveyance deed was submitted by the complainants. OP has further stated that they have also formed a search committee for searching original documents on the complaint and filed a search report dated 09.05.2015, Ex. OP/W8, which confirmed that title deed could not be traced but the certified copy of the title deed has been obtained they are trying to get certified copy of the others documents too. A reply dated 29.03.2016, Ex. OP/W9, by OP was sent to the legal notice of the complaint. OP submits that bank has extended all possible help to the complainants to redress their grievances including payment of compensation as per the award of the Banking Ombudsman. The OP further submitted that the complainant cannot have the fruits in both hands once his grievance has already been addressed by and he accepted the award of the Ombudsman. OP submitted that OP is not liable at all to pay any amount towards loss in value of property etc as claimed by the complainant and also is not entitled for any other or further compensation from the OP.
- The averments made in the complaint are reiterated by the Complainant in rejoinder. Evidence by way of affidavit and written arguments are filed on behalf of parties. Arguments of parties are heard and document placed on record are perused.
- This is the admitted case of OP, vide search report dated 09.05.2015 Ex. OP /W8, that documents filed with OP were lost and could not be traced, despite the best efforts by the OP and that they have arranged the certified copy of the title deed and other documents of the property. The title deed of the property is an important and vital document of the property. The complainants had entrusted OP2 with the original title deeds and other documents of their property at the time of obtaining the housing loan as security and the OP had an obligation under the law to secure and preserve the same with utmost care and caution. Record shows that the documents are still not been traced and the apprehension of the complainant cannot be side lined that documents can be misused by any miscreant or it may affect the value of the property in case of any future sale or the prospective buyer may undervalue the property. The mentioned documents are important documents and it was, thus the responsibility of OP for keeping them safe and secure. Merely supplying certified copies of the title deeds to the complainants would not exonerate OP bank from its liability and does not lessen the extent of trouble, mental tension, harassment and agony as well as the financial loss caused to complainants because of the negligent act of OP during all this period. Thus by not returning the original title deed to the complainant, deficiency in service on the part of OP is well-established, as OP failed in ensuring safety and security of the documents given to him, which act amounts to ‘faulty’ and ‘imperfect’ performance of service, duly covered in the definition of ‘deficiency’ in service under section 2 (1) (g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
- In Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab and Ors. (2005)6 SCC 1, Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that “Negligence is a breach of duty caused by omission to do something and Commission or doing something which is prudent and reasonable man would not do”.
- In the above mentioned deliberation, to meet the ends of justice, it is appropriate to direct OP, who have been undoubtedly reckless in the handling of valuable documents that warrant careful preservation and is guilty of deficiency in service on its part, to pay a compensation of an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-to complainants and Rs.25,000/- towards litigation costs. The same should be paid to complainants within 90 days from the date of the order, failing which the entire amount shall carry an interest @6% p.a. till the actual realisation of the amount. The consumer courts are not bound by the Banking Ombudsman order. No compensation with respect to the reduction in the market value of the property be given as the same is subject to fluctuation and uncertain. In the absence of any document on record showing complainant’s meeting with officials at Mumbai, no amount can be given to complainants for the same.
- The file be consigned to record room after providing copy of the order to parties free of cost.
- The consumer complainant could not be decided within statutory period due to heavy pendency of the court cases.
- The order be updated on website www.confonet.nic.in
- The order contains 9 pages and bears my signature on each page.
| |
