DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 28th day of February, 2023
Filed on: 16/11/2017
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member
Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
CC NO.456/2017
Between
COMPLAINANT
Mohan P.S., S/o. late Sreedharan, Palaril House, Kollasseri Road, Palluruthy, Ernakulam, PIN 682006.
VS
OPPOSITE PARTIES
1. State bank of India (earlier SBT), Thopumpady Branch, P.B. No. 843, Nellikkal Chambers, Thoppumpady P.O., Ernakulam 68205. Rep. by its Chief Manager Sadhanandan.
2. State Bank of India (earlier SBT), Zonal Office Ernakulam, Panampilly Nagar, Ernakulam 683036. Rep. by its Zonal Manager Maneesh
3. State Bank of India (earlier SBT), RBO II Ernakulam, Shanmugham Road, Ernakulam 682031. Rep. by its Manager Dileep.
FINAL ORDER
V. Ramachandran, Member:
The complaint was filed under section 12 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant states that he had availed a housing loan for Rs.2,00,000/- from the 1st opposite party on 26/10/2001 with 9.55% interest per annum. The housing loan account number of the complainant is 570043622737. The loan amount was sanctioned to the complainant by the 1st opposite party on the basis of a mortgage. The complainant mortgaged a property owned by him having an extent of 4.654 acres in Palluruthy Village, Kochi Taluk by virtue of Sale Deed No. 3439/98 of Kochi S.R.O. The 1st opposite party has acknowledged the deposit of original documents including Sale Deed No. 3439/98 of Kochi S.R.O. by the complainant.
The complainant paid regular instalments and also the interest as specified by the 1st opposite party. Finally, the loan was duly repaid and closed on 20/02/2017. Thereafter, the loan account was closed and the 1st opposite party issued a no dues certificate to the complainant. However, in spite of the loan amount being repaid and housing loan account being closed the 1st opposite party failed to return the original documents till date. Subsequently, complainant submitted a representation before the 1st opposite party requesting the return of the original documents and the same was received and duly acknowledged by the 1st opposite party on 04/03/2017. Thereafter, 1st opposite party communicated that they are unable to return the documents including Sale Deed No. 3439/98 of Kochi S.R.O. as the respective files are missing and informed that the original documents are now within the custody of the 2nd opposite party.
The complainant then approached the 2nd opposite party on 15/03/2017 to collect the original documents; however, 2nd opposite party informed that original documents including Sale Deed No. 3439/98 are with the 1st opposite party itself and assured that they will coordinate to handover the original documents. On 29/03/2017, the complainant again approached 1st opposite party but they requested two months’ time to arrange the certified copy of the original documents including Sales Deed No. 3439/98 of Kochi S.R.O. Believing the same, the complainant patiently waited for more than two months but there was no communication neither from the 1st opposite party nor the 2nd opposite party. Again on 31/05/2017 when the complainant approached 1st opposite party, it was informed that the 1st opposite party is waiting for the response from the 2nd opposite party in this matter. The complainant thereafter approached the 3rd opposite party on 01/06/2017 and a detailed representation was given. The representation was received and was duly acknowledged by the 3rd opposite party, however there is no response till date.
The complainant is a senior citizen and is suffering from various ailments. In spite of explaining complaint’s health conditions to the opposite parties, not even an iota or humanitarian consideration was shown to him; instead complainant was made to run from pillar to post. The complainant had to visit all these opposite parties many time personally and also had to make telephonic communications. While the loan was pending, the 1st opposite party had issued illegal coercive notices. The coercive measures initiated during that time had defamed the complainant and his family. But when the loan amount has been duly repaid by the complainant all the opposite parties failed to return the original mortgaged document including Sale Deed No. 3439/98. The original document is urgently required by the complainant for his personal purposes. Complainant is made to suffer due to the deplorable deficiency in service rendered by all the opposite parties. The 1st opposite party has failed to return the original documents even after the loan amount were repaid and the loan account was closed. The 2nd and 3rd opposite parties worsened the mental agony of the complainant was put their callous and ineffective response and the complainant was put through excruciating mental torment by all the opposite parties. Complainant had caused the issuance of a lawyer’s notice dated 08/08/2017 to the opposite parties claiming compensation for the deficiency in service by all three opposite parties. No reply has been issued by the any of the opposite parties till date. Due to the deficiency in service by all three opposite parties, the original documents including sale deed is lost and this has resulted in severe hardship to the complainant. The complainant has approached all three opposite parties many times to get the original documents the complainant will have to suffer more in the coming days at this old and will have to suffer more in the coming days at this old age and will have to approach different Government Departments to get duplicate of these documents merely due to the deficiency in service of all three opposite parties. Hence the complainant is prayed to issuing direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.15,00,000/- and also to issue direction to the opposite parties to return the original documents.
Notice was issued from this Commission to the opposite parties and the opposite parties did not file their version and express their willingness to return documents and pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation. Subsequently it was informed by the counsel of the opposite parties the settlement steps has been accepted by the complainant and therefore the Commission took evidence in this complaint. Complainant filed 6 documents which are marked as Exbt. A1 to A6 and the complainant was also cross-examined by the opposite parties and deposition marked as PW1. Opposite parties filed 2 documents and are marked as Exbt. B1 and B2.
Exbt. A1 is copy of Account statement, Exbt. A2 is the copy of letter issued by the Bank in which it is stated that the opposite parties are not able to return the documents mortgaged for the said loan as the file has not yet been traced out and is being searched at SARC and so on. Exbt. A3 is the copy of letter sent by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party, Exbt. A4 is the copy of lawyer notice sent to the opposite parties, Exbt. A5 is the copy of postal receipt and AD card, Exbt. A6 is the copy of postal receipt and AD card, Exbt. B1 is copy of document and Exbt. B2 is the copy of compensation policy.
The issues came up for consideration in this case are:
i. Whether the complainant has proved that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?
ii. If so whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation from the opposite parties and the quantum of compensation entitled for the complainant?
iii. Reliefs and costs?
We have examined all the details furnished by the complainant and also other relevant matters associated with this case. Even though notice issued to the opposite parties from this Commission, opposite parties had not filed their version but they have sought for steps for settlement. Even though the period allowed for filing version was lapsed, the opposite parties were given chance to cross examine the complainant.
The Bank has adopted the principles of “Lenders’ liability”. In terms of guidelines for “lenders’ liability” and the “Code of Bank’s commitment to customer” adopted by the Bank, the Bank would return to the borrowers all the securities/documents/title deeds of the mortgaged property within 15 days of repayment of all dues agreed to or contracted, subject to any other right/lien/claim by the Bank till the relevant claim is settled/paid. If any right to set off is to be exercised for any other claim, Bank shall give due notice with full particulars about the other claims and retain the securities/documents/title to mortgaged property till the relevant claim is settled/paid. In the event of loss of title deed to mortgaged property at the hands of the Banks, the compensation will cover out of pocket expenses at the hand of the Banks, the documents plus a lump sum amount as decided by the Bank in the following manner “The Bank would pay the compensation for delay in return of securities/documents/title deeds of the mortgaged property beyond 15 days of repayment of all dues agreed to or contracted, subject to above conditions, @ Rs.100/- per day (maximum Rs.5,000/-) to the borrower”
The bank has imposed a unilateral condition saying that an amount of Rs.5,000/- shall be given for the loss sustained to the complainant. Here in this case the complainant had to undergo deficiency of service and the bank had committed unfair trade practice towards the complainant and therefore the complainant is to be compensated. The Commission issued orders as follows:
1. The opposite parties shall return the original document mortgaged by the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) shall be paid by the opposite parties to the complainant which the bank can recover from the salary or other ways from the person/persons responsible for the loss.
2. Opposite parties shall pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the complainant as compensation for the mental agony, hardships and other sufferings caused to him.
3. Opposite parties shall pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as cost of proceedings to the complainant.
The above-mentioned directions shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties jointly and severally within 30 days from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount ordered vide (i) and (ii) above shall attract interest @ 5.5% from the date of receipt of a copy of this order till the date of realization.
Pronounced in the open Commission on this the 28th day of February, 2023,
Sd/-
V. Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded/by Order
Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX
Complainant’s Evidence
Exbt. A1: Copy of Account statement
Exbt. A2: Copy of letter issued by the Bank
Exbt. A3: Copy of letter sent by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party
Exbt. A4: Copy of lawyer notice sent to the opposite parties
Exbt. A5: Copy of postal receipt and AD card
Exbt. A6: Copy of postal receipt and AD card
Opposite party’s evidence
Exbt. B1: Copy of document
Exbt. B2: Copy of compensation policy.
Despatch date:
By hand: By post
kp/
CC No. 456/2017
Order Date: 28/01/2023
