Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/205/2013

STATE BANK OF INDIA, CHIEF MANAGER - Complainant(s)

Versus

S. RAJKUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

S. NATARAJAN

29 Apr 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present:   Hon’ble THIRU. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH  :     PRESIDENT

                 THIRU R. VENKATESAPERUMAL            :      MEMBER

 

F.A. No. 205 of 2013

(Against the order passed in C.C. No.127 of 2011 dated 21.02.2013 on the file of the D.C.D.R.F., Chennnai (North).

 

 

Friday, the 29^th day of April 2022

1.  State Bank of India

     Rep. by its Chief Manager

     West Tambaram Branch

     V.N. Complex

     Chennai – 600 045.

 

2.  The Chief General Manager

     State Bank of India

     Local Head Office (Complaint Cell)

     College Road, Nungambakkam.

     Chennai – 600 034.                                                                                                                 .. Appellants/ Opposite Parties

 

 

- Vs –

 

S. Rajkumar

S/o. V.S. Subramanian

# 45, Saraswathy Nagar

Selaiyur, Chennai .                                                                                                                            .. Respondent/ Complainant

 

   

    Counsel for Appellants / Opposite Parties   : M/s. S. Makesh       

    Counsel for the Respondent/ Complainant  :  M/s.S. Vanchinathan                                                                        

 

                                               

This appeal is coming before us for hearing finally today, on 29.04.2022, and on hearing the arguments of both parties and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following :-

O R D E R

R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT [Open Court]

1.     This appeal has been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as against the order dated 21.02.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (North) in C.C. No.127 of 2011, allowing the complaint filed by the respondent/ complainant herein, in part. 

 

2.  The respondent is the complainant and the appellants are the opposite parties.  For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as per their ranking before the District Forum. 

 

3.   The case of the complainant is that he had availed home loan with the opposite party Bank to the tune of Rs.4,50,000/-under secured loan system by creating an equitable mortgage in respect of the immovable  property by depositing the original sale deed registered in Document No.4737/99 dated 23.09.1999 on the file of Sub Registrar Office, Tambaram, along with the original construction agreement, as security.  The complainant had paid the instalments as per the agreed terms and conditions without any default.  The said loan was closed as the entire agreed amount was paid by the complainant and thus he discharged the loan on 27.11.2008.  Thereafter the complainant has approached the opposite party Bank to return the original documents deposited by him at the time of crediting equitable mortgage.  However, the complainant was directed by the opposite party Bank to go to their ARM Branch to collect the documents.  As per their direction the complainant went to Tambaram Branch to collect the original documents.  But he was asked to come back after a week to collect the documents.  When he went to the respondent Bank after a week, no documents were furnished to him.  Since the original sale deed and construction agreement were not handed over to the complainant, he was unable to sell or mortgage his property.  Finally, he lodged a complaint to Banking Ombudsman by letter dated 23.12.2009 and he  referred the complaint to both the Opposite parties and also to the Branch Manager, Tambaram West Branch,  Tambaram, Chennai.  But all went in vain.  Hence, finally he has filed this Complaint alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and seeking for the following reliefs :

1. To produce the original sale deed registered under Doc. No.4737/99 dated 23.09.1999 on the file of SRO, Tambaram along with the original construction agreement;
2. To pay a sum of Rs.10 lakhs as compensation for the loss suffered by the complainant since 2008;
3. To pay  a compensation of Rs.5 lakhs towards mental agony;
4. To pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs towards monetary loss.

 

4.             Resisting the complaint, the opposite parties have filed a version stating that it is true that the complainant had availed home loan of Rs.4,50,000/- and an equitable mortgage was created on deposit of original title deeds.  Since the complainant repaid the entire loan and got discharged from the loan on 27.11.2008, he approached the opposite parties Bank to take back the original documents deposited as security.  The complainant was asked to wait for a few days by the opposite parties, to collect the documents as the same were in the ARM’s office.  Later, when it was found that the original documents were misplaced, the opposite parties had returned certified copies of title deeds to the complainant.  The loss of the original documents is beyond the control of the Bank.  The complainant had settled the loan on 27.11.2008 but has filed the complaint only on 12.05.2011.  Hence, the complaint is time barred.  The complainant is attempting to make unjust enrichment at the expenses of the opposite parties.  Thus, absolutely there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and sought for dismissal of the complaint.

 

5.      In order to prove the case, on the side of the complainant, along with proof affidavit 12 documents were filed and the same were marked as Ex.A1 to A12.  On the side of the opposite parties, proof affidavits have been filed but no documents were marked.

 

6.  The District Forum, after analyzing the entire evidence and records, has come to the conclusion that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and hence directed the opposite parties      1 and 2 to trace out the original title deed registered in Doc. No.4737/99 dated 23.09.1999 and hand it over to the complainant or in alternative, directed them to pay Rs.1 lakh as compensation and a further sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and also Rs.2000/- as costs, within a period of 6 weeks from the date of the order.  Aggrieved over the same, the present appeal has been filed by the opposite parties.

 

7.   Heard the submissions made by the counsel for the appellants/ opposite parties and have carefully gone through the entire material available on records.  There is no representation for the respondent/ complainant.

 

8.  When the matter was taken up for consideration, counsel for the appellants/opposite parties submitted that it is not the case of the complainant that the opposite parties have not responded to the grievance of the respondent/ complainant.  When the Bank found that the original sale deeds of the respondent/ complaint have been misplaced, they applied for certified copy of the documents and handed over the same to the respondent/ complainant.  Therefore there is no deficiency of service on the part of the appellants/ opposite parties and thus sought to set aside the order of the District Forum.

 

9.  It is the specific case of the respondent/ complainant that since the original documents were misplaced by the opposite parties Bank, he could not sell or mortgage the property with the certified copy of the sale deed.  Therefore, certainly there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.

 

10.  We find that the contention of the respondent/ complainant appears to be reasonable.  When the original document has been deposited with the Bank, it is the duty of the Bank to keep it under safe custody till they hand over the same to the borrower.  But, the factual position of the case would show that there is negligence on the part of the opposite parties.  Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the District Forum.  Hence, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled for compensation.  But, at the same time we find that the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and again Rs.50,000/- awarded by  the District Forum towards compensation appears to be on the higher side.  Therefore, the compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- awarded by the District Forum towards compensation is set aside.  However, this Commission is of the opinion that if a sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded as compensation, it would meet the ends of justice.  Similarly, Rs.2000/- awarded by the District Forum towards cost is also reduced to Rs.1000/-.     

 

11.    In the result, the order dated 21.02.2013 passed in C.C. No.127 of 2011 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (North) is set aside. This Commission directs the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- and a sum of Rs.1000/- as litigation expenses.  Consequently, the Appeal is partly allowed.

 

 

R. VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                                                              R.SUBBIAH

         MEMBER                                                                                                                                   PRESIDENT

 

 

Index :  Yes/ No

 

AVR/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/April /2022