Order by:

Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu,  President.

1.       The  complainants  have filed the instant complaint under section 12 of  the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 1986 (now section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) on the allegations that Iqbal Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh obtained loan from Opposite Party No.3 bank having account No. LBFKT00000350034. Further alleges that said Iqbal Singh has expired on 31.12.2014 and the complainants are his legal heirs and the mutation of inheritance of property of Iqbal Singh deceased has already been sanctioned in favour of the complainants and there is no other legal heir of deceased Iqbal Singh except the complainants. Further alleges that entire loan amount has been returned to Opposite Party No.3 bank. At the time of obtaining the loan, said Iqbal Singh deposited certain original sale deeds etc and in this regard, the complainants made visits to the office of Opposite Party No.3 bank for the return of the original sale deed, but the Opposite Parties  did not return the original documents nor given any  satisfactory reply. As such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       To direct the Opposite Parties bank to return the original sale deed bearing document No. 9071 dated 07.03.1990 registered with the offdice of Sub Registrar, Moga and also to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of compensation for causing them mental tennsion and harassment or any other relief to which this District Consumer Commission may deem fit be granted.

2.       On notice, Opposite Parties- bank appeared through counsel and contested the complaint  by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint is  not maintainable; that the dispute is of civil nature and as perscribed law this District Consumer Commission has got no jurisdcition to try and entertain the preesnt complaint; that the complainants have not come with clean hands before this District Consumer Commission and they have not disclosed the true facts. The complainants themselves did not provide the required  documents for return of original title deed. On merits, it is alleged that complainants were requested to furnish certain documents to make the bank able to release the property documents in the loan account in question i.e. request letter, copy of death certificate of deceased borrower and copy of letter of administration or successors certificate.  It is further submitted that it was also informed to the complainants that if they are unable to produce the letter of administraion of succession certifcificate, they are required to submit the request letter from spouse, indemnity bond executed by spouse in favour of bank and consent letter from legal heirs and copy of identity proof of the claimants as per KYC applicable for loan accounts, but the complainants have not furnished the requisite documents and in this way, the complainants are themselves negligent and hence estopped to file the preesnt false and frivolous complaint   and hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.

3.       In order to prove their case, the complainant has tendered into evidence  affidavit of Paramjit Kaur one of the complainants  Ex.C1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C12 and closed their evidence.

4.       On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Parties- bank also tendered into evidence  the affidavit of Sh.Harpal Singh Kalsi, Ex.OP1 to 3/1 alaongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1 to 3/2 and Ex.OP1 to 3/2 and closed the evidence.

5.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and also gone through the documents placed on record.

6.       Ld.counsel for the Complainant has mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint and contended that first of all, Opposite Party Bank is Limited Company and  the written version  filed on behalf of Opposite Parties   has not been filed by an authorized person. Therefore, the written version so filed is not maintainable. Further contended that Iqbal Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh obtained loan from Opposite Party No.3 bank having account No. LBFKT00000350034. Further alleges that said Iqbal Singh has expired on 31.12.2014 and the complainants are his legal heirs and the mutation has already been sanctioned in favour of the complainants and there is no other legal heir of deceased Iqbal Singh except the complainants. Further alleges that entire loan amount has been returned to Opposite Party No.3 bank. At the time of obtaining the loan, said Iqbal Singh deposited certain original sale deeds etc and in this regard, the complainants made visits to the office of Opposite Party No.3 bank for the return of the original sale deed, but the Opposite Parties  did not return the original documents nor given any  satisfactory reply and as such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties-Bank.

7.       On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties bank repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that  the dispute is of civil nature and as perscribed law this District Consumer Commission has got no jurisdcition to try and entertain the present complaint; that the complainants have not come with clean hands before this District Consumer Commission and they have not disclosed the true facts. The complainants themselves did not provide the required  documents for return of original title deed. On merits, it is alleged that complainants were requested to furnish certain documents to make the bank able to release the property documents in the loan account in question i.e. request letter, copy of death certificate of deceased borrower and copy of letter of administration or successors certificate.  It is further submitted that it was also informed to the complainants that if they are unable to produce the letter of administraion of succession certifcificate, they are required to submit the request letter from spouse, indemnity bond executed by spouse in favour of bank and consent letter from legal heirs and copy of identity proof of the claimants as per KYC applicable for loan accounts, but the complainants have not furnished the requisite documents and in this way, the complainants are themselves negligent and hence estopped to file the preesnt false and frivolous complaint.

8.       Perusal of the contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant   shows  that  the written version  filed on behalf of Opposite Parties   has not been filed by an authorized person. Therefore, the written version so filed is not maintainable. The Opposite Party  is limited Company and written version has been filed on the basis of special power of attorney given  to ld.counsel for the Opposite Party. In this regard,  Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a judgment (2011)II Supreme Court Cases 524 titled as “State Bank of Travancore Vs. Kingston Computers India Pvt. Ltd.” and in para no.11 of the judgment,  has held that

“the plaint was not instituted by an authorized person. On the plea that one authority letter dated 02.01.2003 was issued by Sh. R.K.Shukla in favour of Sh. A.K.Shukla. Further plaint failed to place on record its memorandum/articles to show that Sh. R.k.Shukla has been vested with the powers or had been given a general power of attorney on behalf of the Company to sign, verify and institute the suit on behalf of the Company.”

Similar proposition came before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in “Nibro Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.”, 2 (2005) 5SCC 30 that the

“bear authority is not recognized under law and ultimately, it was held that the plaint was not instituted by an authorized person. Here also appellant has not placed on record any resolution passed by any Board of Director in favour of Mr. Soonwon Kwon and that he was further authorised to delegate his power in favour of any other person. Further there is no memorandum/articles of the Company to show that Mr. Soonwon Kwon is one of the Director of the Company. In the absence of that evidence on record we cannot say that the special power of attorney given by Director Soonwon Kwon is a competent power of attorney issued in favour of Sh. Bhupinder Singh. In the absence of any resolution of the Company or any memorandum/articles of the Company to show that Sh. Soonwon Kwon is Director and that he was further authorised to issue power of attorney in favour of Sh. Bhupinder Singh.”

Recently our own Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab Chandigarh in FAO No.1235 of 2015 decided on 25.01.2017 in case titled as L.G.Electronics India Private Limited Vs. Sita Ram Chaudhary also held that the plaint instituted by  an unauthorized person has no legal effect.

9.       For the sake of arguments, for the time being, if the written reply filed by Opposite Parties  is presumed to be correct, the next  plea  raised by Opposite Parties  is that the intricate questions of law and facts are involved in the present complaint which require voluminous documents and evidence for determination which is not possible in the summary procedure  under the Consumer Protection Act and appropriate remedy, if any, lies only in the Civil Court and this  District Consumer Commission has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. So far as the objection that complicated question of the fact is involved as such the Insured be relegated to go before Civil Court, is concerned, The Consumer Protection Act, 1986

(now Consumer Protection Act, 2019) was enacted with object to provide for better protection of the interests of the consumers and for that purpose, to make provision for the establishment of consumer council and other authorities for settlement of consumer disputes and other matter connected therewith. Section 13 (4) (now Section 38(9) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019) confers same powers upon the authorities under the Act, which are vested in Civil Court under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, while trying a suit in respect of (i) The summoning and enforcing the attendance of any defendant or witness and examining the witness on oath, (ii) the discovery and production of any document or other material object producible as evidence, (iii) the reception of evidence on affidavits, (iv) the requisitioning of the report of the concerned analysis or test the appropriate laboratory or from other relevant source, (v) issuing of any commission for the examination of any witness and (vi) any other matter which may be prescribed. The authorities are conferred jurisdiction to decide the issue of “unfair trade practice” which has been defined under Section 2 (r) (as amended upto date) of the Act. This definition is similar to the definition of “fraud” as given under Section 17 of Indian Contract Act, 1872. From these provisions it is clear that this Commission can hold a full trail as held by civil court or adopt summary procedure for decision of any complaint. Under the Act, although the jurisdiction of the authorities is limited to consumer complaint, but while deciding such complaint no limit has been fixed for adjudicating of the dispute. Three Judges Bench of Supreme Court in Dr. J.J. Merchant Vs. Shrinath Chaturvedi, (2002) 6 SCC 635, (paragraph-7) held that the object and purpose of the Act is to render simple, inexpensive and speedy remedy to the consumer with complaint against defective goods and deficient services and the benevolent piece of legislation, intended to protect a large body of consumer from exploitation. Consumer Forum is an alternate Forum, established under the Act, to discharge the function of Civil Court. Under the Act, the consumers are provided with an alternative efficacious and speedy remedy. As such the Consumer Forum is an alternative forum established under the Act to discharge the functions of Civil Court. Therefore, delay in disposal of the complaint would not be a ground for rejecting the complaint and directing the complainant to approach the Civil Court. The argument that the complicated question of fact cannot be decided by the Forum, has been specifically rejected (In paragraph-12). Similar view has been taken in Amar Jwala Paper Mills Vs. State Bank of India, (1998) 8 SCC 387, CCI Chambers Coop. Hsg. Society Ltd. Development Credit Bank Ltd. (2003) 7 SCC 233. Recently, Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in CC No. 101 of 2009 titled as mahalaxmi Dyes & Chemicals Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited decided on 07.09.2021 also held so.  Hence, this District Consumer Commission is  not convinced with the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties.

10.     The next  plea  raised by Opposite Parties  is that the complainants have not produced the requisite documents to the Opposite Party bank and due to this reason, the original sale deeds could not be delivered to the complainants. But we do not agree with the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties. It is not disputed and is the admitted fact of the parties that the loan which was obtained by Iqbal Singh borrower has already been returned to the Opposite Party Bank which clearly established from the statement of account themselves produced by Opposite Parties-Bank on record as Ex.OP1 to 3/2.  Further perusal of the file shows that the instant complaint has been filed by the complainants about more than 3 years back i.e. on 09.10.2018 and almost the required documents have already been filed by the complainants on the file i.e. original death certificate of Iqbal Singh Ex.C7, copy of jamabandi showing the mutation entered and sanctioned in favour of complainants being the only legal heirs of deceased Iqbal Singh Ex.C8, copy of sale deed which was in the custody of the Opposite Party bank Ex.C9,  copy of  legal notice issued by the advocate of the complainants clearly mentioning that except the complainants, there is no other legal heir of deceased Iqbal Singh  Ex.C10, as well as another duly sworn joint affidavit of Paramjit Kaur widow, Amandeep Singh son and Ramandeep Kaur daughter of Iqbal Singh in which it was again deposed by them that execpt the deponents, there  is no other legal heirs of Iqbal Singh deceased, but we failed to understand that despite completing and  producing the sufficient documents, what was the hitch for the Opposite Parties  to retain the original sale deeds without any reasonable cause. Moreover, during the period of last 3 years i.e. since the date of filing of the instant complaint, the Opposite Parties  -Bank could get complete the remaining documents if required through this District Consumer Commission, but they did not chose to redress the grievance of the complainant positively.  To prove its assertion, the Opposite Parties  have cited the rulings of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi, as well as Karnatka State Commission and Union Territory Consuemr Commission, Pondicherry, but these judgements are not applicable to the facts of the case. On the other hand, we rely upon the the judgements of Hon’ble National Commission in First Appeal No.88 of 2000, decided on 09.12.2002  titled as Doson Chemicals Private Limited Vs. United Bank of India in which it is held that complainant deposited title documents as security with the bank for obtaining loan- documents not returned despite the payment of loan. Complainant was deprived from getting loan from another bank in the absence of title documents. Bank directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- with 12% interest and Rs.10,000/- as costs for commiting gross deficiency in service. Similar view was taken by Hon’ble Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai in A.P. No.994 of 1999 decided on 20.02.2004 titled as Hotel Supreme Private Limited Vs. Tamil nadu Industrial Investment Corporation and Anr. In which it is held that hypothecated documents not returned back after repayment of loan amount, hence deficiency in service.                         

11.     In view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this commission finds  deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties –Bank and hence the Opposite Parties –Bank is directed to return the original sale deed bearing document No. 9071 to the complainants and also to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousands) on account of compensation for causing them mental tension and harassment besides Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousands only) as litigation expenses.  The compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Parties  within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainants shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this District Consumer Commission.    Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after compliance.

12.     Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.

This complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period because the government has not  appointed any of the Whole Time Member in this Commission for about 3 years i.e. w.e.f. 15.09.2018 till 27.08.2021 as well as due to pandemic of COVID-19.

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated: 01.12.2021.