Date of Filing:21.11.2017
Date of Order:18.11.2019
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – I, HYDERABAD
P r e s e n t
HON’BLE Sri P.VIJENDER, B.Sc. L.L.B., PRESIDENT
HON’BLE Sri K.RAM MOHAN, B.Sc. M.A L.L.B., MALE MEMBER
HON’BLE Smt. CH. LAKSHMI PRASANNA, B.Sc. LLM., LADY MEMBER
ON THIS THE MONDAY THE 18th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019
C.C.No.490 /2017
Between
Smt. Surapaneni Radhika,
W/o. S N M Rao, Aged 45 years,
Occ: Service, R/o. # 293, Indu Fort7ne Fields,
Kukatpally, Hyderabad. ……Complainant
And
- Manager,
HSBC Bank,
6-3-1107, & 1108
Raj Bhavan Road,
Somajiguda, Hyderabad – 500 082.
- The HSBC Bank,
The Managing Director,
HSBC (H.O), 52/60,
Mahatma Gandhi Fort,
Mumbai – 400 001.
. ….Opposite Parties
Counsel for the complainants : Sri Gudi Satish Reddy
Counsel for the Opposite Parties : Ms.K.Rajani
O R D E R
(By Sri. P. Vijender, B.Sc., LL.B., President on behalf of the bench)
1) This complaint has been preferred under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging that misplacement of documents by the opposite party which collected from the complainant towards collateral security for due payments of home loan sanctioned to the complainant amounts to deficiency of service. Hence a direction to the opposite party to return the original documents and on failure to it award a compensation of Rs.19,00,000/- under different heads.
2) Complainant’s case in brief is that:
She availed a housing loan of Rs.19,50,000/- from the opposite party bank for purchase of a flat at Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad. She executed loan agreement with the opposite parties and the opposite party collected original registered sale deed on 3.-12.1985 in document bearing No.3236 of 1985, original agreement of construction dt. 3.11.1985, original allotment letter dt. 23.9.1986 from the society, original agreement of sale dt. 30.1.2006 and original registered sale deed executed in favour of the complainant on 13.2.2006 towards collateral security for repayment of the loan amount.
After availing the loan the complainant paid installments as stipulated and discharged of the total loan amount on 10.5.2017 and addressed a letter to opposite party NO.1 on 15.6.2017 requesting to return the above said original documents collected from her. Opposite party No.1 sent a reply dt. 16.6.2017 informing the complainant that the above said original documents are misplaced and required steps are being taken for reconstruction of the same by lodging a complaint with the police and other formalities required for it.
Complainant intended to sell the property as she was in need of funds and started negotiations for it. But for want of original documents the prospective purchasers who negotiated with her backed out. Offer of the complainant to sell the property to several people was not fortified for want of original documents. The complainant purchased the property in the year 2006 for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- and present market value of it is Rs.75,00,000/- as it is located in a prime colony but on account of loss of original documents its value is badly affected and in fact no one is coming forward to buy it for want of original documents.
. Complainant got issued a legal notice on 6.8.2017 to opposite parties for return of original documents , but there was no response. Misplacing of the documents by the opposite partiers amounts to deficiency of service . Hence the present complaint.
3) Opposite parties filed a common written version admitting the complainant’s version of sanction of housing loan and collecting of original documents of the property as a security for repayment of loan and misplacement of the documents while in their safe custody. But denied the allegation of deficiency of service and liability to pay the compensation as claimed by the complainant. The stand of the opposite parties is home loan was sanctioned to the complainant for the purchase of the flat on 10.2.2006 and necessary documentation & was done by the complainant she submitted the original documents as enumerated in the complaint and complainant and repaid the entire loan amount and sought for the original documents. As per the process the documents collected by the branch are required to sent to centralized department for safe custody of the same. But in the present case the title deeds could not be located either at the Hyderabad branch or at the centralized department and they might have get mixed up with some other papers. Hence could not be traced out and same fact was communicated to the complainant by a letter dt. 16.6.2017. The complainant was also informed that opposite parties will procure certified copy of the title deeds from the concerned office at their own expenses. The claim of the complainant for compensation of Rs.19,00,.000/- is not properly explained as to how she is entitled for it. Since the opposite parties are prepared to take steps for the obtaining the certified copies of documents lost , no amount of compensation is liable to be paid to the complainant.
4) In the enquiry the complainant got filed her evidence affidavit reiterating the substance of the complaint. For the opposite party Evidence affidavit of one Samele stated to be the Manager at the Hyderabad branch is got filed and the substance of the same is in line stand taken in the written version. For the complainant 7 documents are exhibited and which are not in dispute. Both the parties have filed written arguments. Complainant supplemented the same by oral submissions.
5) On a consideration of material brought on the record the following points have emerged for determination:
- Whether the misplacement of the documents of the complainant by the opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for reliefs prayed for in the complaint?.
- To what relief?
6) Point No.1: Material facts stated by the complainant have been admitted by the opposite parties. Hence rowing enquiry is not necessary on the misplacing of documents by the opposite parties. The opposite parties being bankers are expected to keep the original documents of the complainant in safe custody and return soon after closure of the loan account after repayment of the same by the lonee. Causing misplacement of documents certainly amounts to negligence or carelessness on the part of the opposite party and failure to return the documents after repayment of the entire loan amounts certainly amounts to deficiency of service. Accordingly the point is answered in favour of the complainant.
8) Point No.2:- The version of the complainant that she intend to sell the property as she is in need of money is not being in disputed by the opposite parties It is a common knowledge that no prospective purchaser of a immovable property will not come forward to purchase in the absence of original title deeds of the property. In the instant complaint it is not only loss of original sale deed for the subject flat but also original link documents. On a future date if these documents comes into the hands of 3rd party there will be possibility of misusing the same either for depositing to avail a loan or to deal in sale transaction . Hence there is any amount of truth in the complainants version that she suffered mental agony for want of original documents in addition to diminishing value of the property in the event of sale by her. Having regards to these facts this Forum is of considered view that the loss suffered by the complainant can be reasonably compensated by awarding a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on all accounts. The opposite party shall execute an indemnity bond in favour of the complainant undertaking to compensate the complainant if any loss arises to her in the event of 3rd parties comes up with a claim over the subject property basing on original documents in their hand. Accordingly the point is answered in favour of the complainant.
9) In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties :
1. To pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing misplacing of original title deeds and link documents of the property and thereby casing mental agony to her.
2. To execute indemnity bond in favour of the complainant in the proforma to be furnished by the complainant.
3 To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards costs of this complaint
Time for compliance is one month from the date of service of this order .
Dictated to steno , transcribed and typed by her and pronounced by us on the 18th day of November, 2019.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED
NIL
Exhibits filed on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A1 & 2 – Letters issued by the opposite party to the complainant
Ex.A3 – Statement of Account Letter issued to the Bank by the complainant ..
Ex.A4 – Letter issued to the Bank by the complainant .
Ex.A5 – Letter issued by the Bank to the complainant.
Ex.A6 – Legal notice dt.6.8.2017
Ex.A7 – Acknowledgement card
Exhibits filed on behalf of the Opposite parties:
Nil
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
