1.       This appeal under section 19 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is in challenge to the Order dated 08.07.2019 of the State Commission in complaint no. 114 of 2015.

2.       Mr. Anand Shankar Jha, learned counsel appears for the appellant (the ‘bank’).  No one appears for the respondent (the ‘complainant’).

We have heard the learned counsel for the bank and have perused the material on record including inter alia the State Commission’s impugned Order dated 08.07.2019 and the memorandum of appeal.

3.       The short point in the matter is that even after the complainant had repaid its loan to the bank, the bank first did not return his pledged documents and subsequently informed him that one original document of his property i.e. original agreement for sale dated 27.03.2008 had been lost / misplaced. Holding it to be ‘deficiency in service’, the State Commission ordered the bank to pay compensation of Rs. 5 lakh to the complainant within 40 days failing which the awarded amount would carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The State Commission also allowed cost of Rs. 40 thousand.

4.       It is well-evinced, and, in fact, it is admitted to by the bank itself, that it has lost / misplaced the original property document i.e. the original agreement for sale of the complainant’s flat.

5.       Learned counsel for the bank in his submissions does not dispute that the said original property document has been lost / misplaced by the bank. His submissions are confined only to the quantum of compensation awarded by the State Commission. In the opinion of the learned counsel compensation of Rs. 5 lakh for an original agreement for sale is unreasonably high. Submission is that the concerned document is not of such importance or significance as may call for such compensation.

6.       We may however observe that loss of an original property document materially affects the salability and value of the property. A question mark clings and obtains on the property, in perpetuity. Regarding the argument that the concerned document is not of much importance or significance, suffice is to note that the bank, in its own wisdom, had deemed it appropriate and necessary to get the said document pledged with it as a condition precedent to the grant of loan, which would not have been logical or required if the document was of not much consequence.

On the face of it, the compensation awarded by the State Commission, by all means, appears just and equitable, commensurate with the loss and injury suffered. We find no good reason to take a different view of the matter than which has been taken by the State Commission.

Disconcertingly enough, there is nothing on record to show that the bank had conducted any inquiry to fix accountability or undertaken any action to inculcate systemic improvements for future so that such instances of deficiency get minimised vis a vis the common ordinary consumers at large.

When, by its own admission, it had lost / misplaced the complainant’s original property document, the bank should have, on its own, in the normal wont of its functioning, got the concerned document reconstructed, handed over the reconstructed document to the complainant, with courtesy and apology, as also ought to have conducted an internal inquiry to fix responsibility as well as undertaken systemic improvements for future. It, however, rather deemed it apt to contest the case before the State Commission, and after a self-evidently fair order from the State Commission, it deemed it apt to prefer appeal before this Commission, to assail the quantum of compensation, which, but, on the face of it itself, is so very reasonable and fair. The bank’s position and approach in such matter where it is admittedly at fault is difficult to understand, or appreciate. We may elaborate further.

7.       At this stage learned counsel for the bank submits that he wishes to withdraw the appeal unconditionally. He also submits that the amount if any deposited by the bank with the State Commission in compliance of this Commission’s Order dated 28.08.2019 along with interest if any accrued thereon may be forthwith released to the complainant and further that the balance awarded amount will be made good by the bank within eight weeks from today.

8.       In the wake of the above submissions, the present appeal no. 1661 of 2019 stands dismissed.

The State Commission shall forthwith release the amount if any deposited by the bank in compliance of this Commission’s Order dated 28.08.2019 along with interest if any accrued thereon to the complainant as per the due procedure.

The balance awarded amount shall be made good by the bank within eight weeks from today, failing which the State Commission shall undertake execution, for ‘enforcement’ and for ‘penalty’, as per the law.

9.       The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the appeal and to their learned counsel as well as to the State Commission immediately. The stenographer is requested to upload a copy of this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.

‘Dasti’, in addition, to facilitate timely compliance.