BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

BANGALORE (ADDL. BENCH)

DATED THIS THE 14^th DAY OF JUNE 2023

PRESENT

MR. RAVISHANKAR                           : JUDICIAL MEMBER

MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI     :    MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 652/2015

V/s

ORDER

MR. RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

This is a complaint filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties in not returning the original title deeds of the property due to which he suffered loss of Rs.70,00,000/- hence, prayed for a direction against the Opposite Parties to return the original title deed with loss incurred by the complainant to the tune of Rs.70,00,000/- along with compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- per month from the date of legal notice dt.24.09.2015 in the interest of justice and equity.

2.      The brief facts of the complaint is hereunder;

It is the case of the complainant that he had availed a mortgage loan from the Opposite Party Bank to the tune of Rs.1,64,00,000/- and the same was approved through the letter vide Ref.No. LOS ID-583595.  At the time of availing the loan and executing the mortgage, the complainant had deposited the documents concerning to the immovable property bearing No.1963, 9^th Main, 12^th Cross, Kumaraswamy Layout, Bangalore 560 078 and No.727, 14^th Main, Kumaraswamy Layout, Bangalore 560 078.  After deposit, the Mortgage Deed was registered before the Sub Registrar, Basavanagudi, Bangalore vide Registration No.7389-2013-14 dt. 12.03.2014. Thereafter, the complainant had cleared the loan amount to the tune of Rs.69,21,916/- on 02.06.2015.  The complainant demanded for return of the original documents by discharging the said entire outstanding loan.  Accordingly, the Opposite Party agreed to execute the Discharge Deed in favour of the complainant with respect to the mortgaged property. 

3.      The complainant got mortgage loan discharged vide the memorandum of discharge vide Registration No.CMP-1-03540/2015-16 Book No.I, CD No.CMPD141, dt.16.07.2015 before the Sub-Registrar, Basavanagudi, Bangalore.  The complainant also cleared the balance loan amount to the tune of Rs.95,58,922/- and demanded for return of the original set of documents after clearance of the loan amount whereas the Opposite Party failed to return the original documents by assigning the reason that all the original documents mentioned above are lost, hence, they are not in a position to hand over the same.  Further, the Opposite Parties have demanded the complainant to execute the Indemnity Bond dt.21.07.2015 in order to discharge him from the said liability.  Accordingly, the complainant had executed the Indemnity Bond in favour of the Opposite Party.  Thereafter, the Opposite Parties have lodging a police complaint before the Malleshwaram Police Station, Bangalore against the misplace/loss of the original documents of the complainant accompanied by affidavit of the Area Collection Manager, but, the said police complaint does not serve any purpose of the complainant.  Hence, the Opposite Parties have rendered deficiency in service in not returning the original title deeds which were mortgaged at the time of availing the loan. 

4.      Due to misplacement of the original title deeds of the abovesaid immovable property, the complainant could not sell the property for the appropriate sale consideration.  It is valued for Rs.1,15,36,528/- by Opposite Party themselves.  The complainant instead of selling the said property to the abovesaid amount has only offered on sale consideration ofRs.45,00,000/- due to non-availability of the original title deeds, thereby, the complainant suffered loss to the tune of Rs.70,00,000/-.

5.      The complainant intended to clear the outstanding due of Rs.95,58,922/- by selling mortgaged property to the tuneof Rs.1,15,36,528/- to get rid of the loan.  Due to mis-placement of the said documents, the complainant could alienate the said property as per the prevailing market value, hence, the Opposite Parties rendered deficiency in service.  It is only due to negligence on the part of the Opposite Party Bank in not returning the original title deeds.  The complainant issued a legal notice for demanding the payment, but, the Opposite Party not replied to the legal notice.  Hence, the complaint.

6.      After service of notice, the Opposite Parties appeared through counsel and filed version and contended that there is no cause of action arose and in the complaint alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties.  The complainant has not provided any valid and legal reason for which he is entitled for such a huge compensation.  The dispute raised by the complainant is not fall within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

7.      It is true that the complainant had availed loan and as a security towards loan, he had mortgaged his immovable property by way of depositing the original title deeds, thereafter, he cleared the same.  The Opposite Party did not maintain the original title deeds at the branch level and the same was kept at the Head Office, through a vendor appointed by the Company.  Once the Opposite Party collects the title deeds pertaining to the borrower, the same is in Head Office in huge safety vaults and only when the loan is closed, the branch office places request, the title deeds retrieved and in turn, the same is handed over to the customers.  In this complaint inspite of best efforts of the Opposite Parties, they are not able to trace the title deeds pertaining to the property of the complainant.

8.      The Opposite Parties notified about loss of the documents and suggested that they would follow the requisite procedure and recreate the documents in case of loss of title deeds and wrote a letter dt.25.06.2015 to the complainant.  The complainant also agreed to the said proposal and thereafter, this Opposite Party have lodged a police complaint before the Malleshwaram Police Station and also caused public notice in a Kannada daily newspaper ‘Kannada Prabha’ dt.06.08.2015 and in English newspaper ‘Indian Express’ dt.08.08.2015.  They also sworn affidavit confirming the loss of documents.  The acknowledgement issued by the jurisdictional police and notice published in the newspaper are produced before this Commission for kind perusal.  Hence, the allegation made by the complainant that the Opposite Party have not made any efforts to trace out the original title deeds is utterly false and submits that there is no deficiency in service.

9.      The Opposite Parties further contended that being helpless also executed Indemnity Bond agreeing to indemnify the complainant in respect to the claims attributed to the title of the property being questioned solely on account of the original document being not available.  In addition to that Indemnity Bond, they have also obtained certified copies of the title deeds from the Sub Registrar Office and handed over the same to the complainant on 28.08.2015, hence, there is no any deficiency in service on their part. 

10.    The Opposite Party further contended that it is also brought to the notice of the complainant that there is no legal embargo for creation of equitable mortgage by deposit of certified copies of original title deeds.  The title of the property and be established by several other documents like encumbrance, tax paid receipts, Katha certificate issued by the Jurisdictional Corporation, Sanction Plans for construction evidencing the purchase, permissions and approvals.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service in handing over the certified copies of the original title deeds of the property belonging to the complainant.

11.    The Opposite Party further contended that it is false to say that the complainant suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.70,00,000/- and the Opposite Party is liable to pay the said loss.  The complainant had sold the property on 21.08.2015 for a consideration amount of Rs.63,00,000/- whereas he claims that he offered only for Rs.45,00,000/-.  Subsequently, the immovable property has changed two hands and in both cases loans have been sanctioned, hence, there is no defect to the title deeds of the property as claimed by the complainant and Encumbrance Certificate issued by the Sub Registrar Office is also produced herewith for kind perusal.  They have recreated the documents which are required to the complainant for sale of the same.  Accordingly, the complainant also sold to the subsequent purchaser.  Hence, the question of loss does not arise and there is no deficiency in service in providing the certified copies of the title deeds and also providing Indemnity Bond, hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

12.    The complainant files affidavit evidence and marked documents at Ex.C1 to C8.  The Opposite Parties also file affidavit evidence and marked documents at Ex.R1 to R8.  Heard the arguments of complainant.  Inspite of sufficient opportunity provided, the Opposite Party has not submitted the arguments. 

13.    On perusal, the following points will arise for our consideration;

(i)       Whether the complaint is deserves to be allowed?

(ii)      What order?

          14.    The findings to the above points are;

                   (i)       Negative

                   (ii)      As per final order

REASONS

15.    On perusal of the contents of the complaint, version, affidavit evidence and documents of both parties, it is an admitted fact that the complainant had availed mortgage loan to the tune of Rs.1,64,00,000/- and at the time of mortgage, he has deposited original title deeds of his residential property bearing No.1963, 9^th Main, 12^th Cross, Kumaraswamy Layout, Bangalore 560 078 and No.727, 14^th Main, Kumaraswamy Layout, Bangalore 560 078.  After availing the loan and executing the Mortgage Deed, the complainant had admittedly cleared the entire loan and demanded for return of the original title deeds which were deposited at the time of executing the Mortgage Deed.  Instead of returning the original title deeds, the Opposite Party has provided certified copy of the said title deeds and also provided Indemnity Bond to the complainant after registering the Police Complaint before the Malleshwaram Police Station and the same is also acknowledged by the complainant.  After obtaining the said certified copies of the title deeds of the abovesaid property, the complainant sold the said property to the subsequent purchaser to the tune of Rs.63,00,000/- as per the version filed by the Opposite Party.  Whereas the complainant sworn affidavit that he has sold the said property only to the tune of Rs.45,00,000/- and suffered loss to the tune of Rs.70,00,000/-.  The complainant had not produced any material to show that he has sold the property for Rs.45,00,000/-.  In the absence of the same, we cannot hold that the complainant could have earned Rs.1,15,36,527/- by selling the said property.

16.    Ofcourse we agree that the Opposite Parties are liable to return the original title deeds as soon as the loan was completely cleared whereas in this case, the Opposite Parties admits that the said documents were lost inspite of sincere efforts made to trace out the same.  In the alternative, they have provided Indemnity Bond and also registered the Police Complaint before the jurisdictional police station.  Apart from that, they have published the public notice in Kannada and English daily newspaper with respect to the property and further the certified copies are also obtained from the Sub Registrar Office and handed over to the complainant.  After receiving the said certified copies and Indemnity Bond, the complainant also sold the property to the subsequent purchaser.  When the complainant had received the certified copies after obtaining the Indemnity Bond, we found the complainant not suffered any inconvenience or financial loss due to non-availability of the original title deeds.  The claim made by the complainant for a compensation to the tune of Rs.70,00,000/- towards the loss of consideration amount is not acceptable.  The complainant has not established deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties since the Opposite Parties are handed over the certified copies of the documents as soon as the original title deeds were not traced out.  We found there is no any dispute as alleged by the complainant.  Apart from that the complainant had filed this complaint after sale of the property which was mortgaged.  The sale was successful and no inconvenience caused to the complainant as such, the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation as claimed.  Hence, the following;

ORDER

The complaint is dismissed.

Forward free copies to both the parties. 

                      Sd/-                                                             Sd/-

MEMBER                                           JUDICIAL MEMBER

KCS*