This  first appeal has been filed under Section 19,  read with Section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 10.9.2012,  passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (hereinafter referred as the ‘State Commission’), vide which,  consumer complaint no.17 of 2012,  filed by the complainant (present respondent) was allowed and the appellant was directed to provide the original papers of the property in question to the complainant within one month, failing which, he was asked to provide 85% of the value of the house alongwith 18% interest as well as punitive damages of Rs.5 lakhs and Rs.20,000/- as cost of litigation.

2.       The brief facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent filed the consumer complaint in question against the petitioner LIC Housing Finance Ltd., seeking return of the original title deed of House no.3/396,  Vishal Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow together with compensation and damages.  It was stated that the complainant obtained a loan of Rs.4.75 lakhs on 15.4.1998 from the OP-1 and in lieu of that,  the original documents of the property stated above were handed over to the said OP-1.  The said loan was returned by the complainant on 30.5.2003, but when he  demanded the title deed back, he was informed that the said documents had been misplaced in their office.  The complainant obtained another loan of Rs. 5 lakhs from the OP-1 on 23.2.2004 which was also repaid till 29.7.2006, but the original title deed of the house was not returned to him. The OP-1 issued an NOC dated 11.8.2006 in favour of the complainant. Vide letter dated 1.5.2007,  the OP-1 informed that the original title deed of the house  was not traceable. They also made publication in the  Daily Newspaper on 12.4.2007 and 14.4.2007, regarding misplacing of the sale deed. The complainant alleged that on account of non-availability of the original title deed, he was unable to avail the facility of loan/financial assistance etc. and hence,  he had been put to a great loss. The complainant sought directions to OP-1 to return the original title deed and also to pay a sum of Rs.24 lakhs as damages for deficiency in service and another Rs.5 lakhs as compensation and Rs.50,000/- as litigation cost.

3.       The complaint was resisted by the OP-1 by filing a written statement before the State Commission, in which they admitted about raising of  two loans by the complainant from them, but also stated that the original sale deed in respect of the property had been misplaced by them and hence, it was not possible to return the same to the complainant. However, they were prepared to bear expenses, pertaining to stamp duty, registration etc. if the complainant wanted to get executed and registered,  a fresh sale deed from the previous owner in respect of the  said property.

4.       The State Commission after taking into account the averments of the parties, allowed the consumer complaint and directed as follows, vide their impugned order dated 10.9.2012;

“The complaint of the complainant is admitted against the op no.1 and directed to him that he will provide the original papers of the House in question i.e. House No.3/396, Vishal Khand, Gomtinagar, Lucknow to the complainant within one month failing which he will provide the 85% value of the house out of correct value of the house, it will be in the proforma of funds alongwith the 18% interest within one month and also the complainant is entitled to get the 5.00 lacs rupees form the opposite party no.1 as punitive damages and also the complainant is entitled to get the Rs.20,000/- from the opposite party no.1 as the expenses of the complaint.”

5.       Being aggrieved against the said order of the State Commission, OP-1 is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

6.       During hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant stated that although they had admitted in their reply before the State Commission that the original title deed stood misplaced and hence,  it was not possible to return the same, the relief allowed by the State Commission was excessive and unreasonable, rather it was much more than the relief claimed by the complainant in the consumer complaint. Moreover, the  impugned order passed by the State Commission was vague, because the value of the property had not been stated therein and yet the appellant had been asked to pay 85% of the said value. The learned counsel stated that the title deed got misplaced due to shifting of their office to the new premises. They had, however, supplied a certified copy  to the complainant after obtaining the same from the sub-registrar. Moreover, they had advanced the second loan of Rs. 5 lakhs also to the complainant without asking for any more document.  A publication  had also been made by them in the newspaper indicating clearly that there was no encumbrances on the property in question. The learned counsel has drawn attention to the orders passed by this Commission in Original Petition no.70 of 2002 on 2.9.2005, C.L. Khanna vs. Dena Bank,  in which it was observed as follows:

      “In our view, it would not be difficult to sell the property in a case of loss of registered gift deed if proper advertisement is given by the Bank that the original gift deed is lost by the Bank and that the property is free from any encumbrances. It cannot be held that the value of the property would be reduced by 35% in case of loss of title deed. hence, it would not be proper to award compensation as claimed by the complainant.”

7.       It was directed by this Commission that he Bank shall pay compensation of Rs.1 lakh to the complainant for the deficiency in service and also publish an advertisement in the newspaper as directed by the Banking Ombudsman with regard to the loss of the deed. The learned counsel argued that the appellants were willing to pay compensation in accordance with the principles laid down in the case,  C.L. Khanna vs. Dena Bank(supra).

8.       The learned counsel also stated that the complaint in question was barred by limitation as per Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act,  having been filed after a lapse of two years from the date of the cause of action.

9.       The learned counsel for the respondent stated however, that the factum of misplacement of the original title deed had been duly admitted by the appellant/OP-1. In the given circumstances, the relief given by the state Commission was appropriate and should be upheld. The learned counsel has drawn attention to another order passed by this Commission on 15.10.2014 in R.P. No.3800/2014, Indian Overseas Bank vs. Shri K. Bal Reddy and others, in which the orders passed by this Commission in C.L. Khanna vs. Dena Bank  (supra) were considered, but it was held that there would be considerable erosion in the re-sale value of the property on account of the loss of title deed. An opinion was also expressed that the compensation awarded by the State Commission was on the lower side.  Further, in so far as the point of  delay in filing the consumer complaint was concerned, the same had been discussed in the impugned order itself and a finding given that this was a case of continuing cause of action, because appellant/OP-1 had been constantly taking the stand that the documents were misplaced which gives rise to the presumption that the documents could be traced at some stage. Had the appellant stated that the documents had been lost, the cause of action would have started from the date of knowledge of that fact on the part of the complainant. In the present case, therefore, the complaint was not barred by limitation, there being continuing cause of action.

10.     I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me.

11.     The facts of the case as narrated in the consumer complaint and in the written reply to the same,  filed by the appellant have been admitted by both the parties to the extent that the original title deed of the property in question belonging to the complainant had been misplaced by the appellant. The appellant/OP-1 stated in their reply that they were not in a position to return the said document as it had been misplaced. They have, however, stated that they had already taken various measures like making publication in the newspaper,  obtaining a certified copy of the documents etc.  They had even  decided to advance second loan of Rs.5 lakhs to the complainant. The stand taken by the appellant is that for the loss of the said documents, some reasonable compensation should have been ordered to be paid to the complainant as per direction given in the order passed by the Commission in C.L. Khanna vs. Dena Bank (supra).

12.     A perusal of the prayer clause attached to the complaint says that the complainant sought return of the title deed and Rs.48.5 lakhs as compensation for damages, mental harassment and agony etc.   On the other hand, the State Commission vide their impugned order ordered payment of 85% of the current value of the property alongwith 18% interest and Rs.5 lakhs as punitive damages and Rs.20,000/- as cost of litigation. It is quite apparent  that the compensation allowed to the complainant is excessive. By directing payment of 85% of the current value of the house alongwith 18% interest, the State Commission has ordered payment of amount almost more than double the current value of the house in question. The award of such compensation for the loss of the title deed cannot be held to be justified by any stretch of imagination. At best, the appellant/OP-1 could be given directions to compensate the complainant for the deficiency in service on their part for the loss of the said title deed.  In so far as the observations made by this Commission in the cases, C.L. Khanna vs. Dena Bank (supra) and   Indian Overseas Bank vs. K.  Bal Reddy (supra) are concerned, the essence of these two orders is that the re-sale value of an immovable property shall diminish/erode, if the title deeds of the said property are lost/misplaced.  In the case C.L. Khanna vs. Dena Bank (supra), it was observed that the value would not be reduced to the extent of 35%, but this Commission never stated that the value shall not be diminished. Keeping in view the facts of the present case, therefore, it is felt that a  total compensation of Rs.5 lakhs to the complainant for the loss  of the title deed,  shall meet the ends of justice.

13.     Based on the discussion above, this first appeal is partly allowed and the order passed by the State Commission is set aside. The appellant is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) to the complainant for the loss of the sale deed within a period of four weeks from today, failing which,  he shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. for the period of default in making such payment. In addition, a sum of Rs.20,000/- is also allowed as litigation cost to the complainant.

14.     There shall be no order as to costs.