By. Smt. Beena. M, Member:
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. Brief facts of the case are given below:
The Complainant had availed an agricultural loan for Rs.10,00,000/- from the Opposite Party by depositing his Sale Deed No.1514/2000 of S.R.O, Pulpally as security as per the norms of the Opposite Party . Thereafter, the Complainant repaid the entire loan amount with interest on 20/09/2019 and closed the transaction. While after closing the loan when the Complainant asked to return the above said deed and documents, the Opposite Party agreed to return the document within one month. After one month the Complainant approached the Opposite Party and asked him to return the deed, but the Opposite Party told that the deed was misplaced and will return soon after tracing it. However, the Opposite Party has not yet returned the same. The complainant further pleaded that under the pressure of the Opposite Party, he was compelled to close the loan by borrowing the amount from various sources, and the Complainant had to pay huge interest also. The Complainant had planned to take a loan if the Opposite Party had returned the deed, from Padichira Service Co-Operative Bank and repay the amount he borrowed from others. Moreover, the Complainant could not take loan from any bank or sell out any part of his property for establishing his Coffee Mill business. Due to the negligent act of the Opposite Party, the Complainant was put to irreparable loss and mental agony. The Complainant prays this Hon’ble Commission to direct the Opposite Party (a) to handover the original document he had submitted to the Opposite Party at the time of availing loan. (b) to pay Compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/- and (c) to pay cost of the proceedings and other reliefs the Hon’ble Commission may deem fit.
3. The Opposite Party entered appearance and filed version. The Opposite Party has admitted that the Complainant had availed an agriculture loan from them by depositing the Title Deed No.1514/2000 of S.R.O, Pulpally. It has also been admitted that the complainant has repaid the entire loan amount on 20-09-2019. The Opposite Party further submitted that they had told the Complainant when the loan was closed by him that the above title deed will be returned to him within one month, since all the documents are kept in the Bank at Hydrabad. But the Regional Operation Manager of the Axis Bank, Ernakulum had informed the Opposite Party that the title deed was misplaced from the Bank at Ernakulam while shifting the documents from Hydrabad to Ernakulam Branch. The Manager of the Axis Bank, Sulthan Bathery Branch was informed the Complainant about the missing of the title deed from Ernakulam branch. The above title deed was misplaced from the Ernakulam Branch and could not trace it out till now and they made all efforts to trace it. There is no negligence or carelessness on the part of the Opposite Party in keeping the title deed. Immediately on knowing the fact of misplacement of the title deed, the Manager of the Eranakulam branch published a public notice about missing of the title deed through Advocate in Malayala Manorama News Paper both in Ernakulam and Wayanad editions and had obtained certified copy of the document No.1514/2000 of S.R.O Pulpally. Certified copy of the deed and an affidavit sworn by him were sent to the Complainant in order to help the Complainant to substitute the misplaced title deed. The Regional Operation Manager at Ernakulam had filed a Complaint before Sub Inspector of Police, Palarivattam Police Station about the loss of the title deed. The Opposite Party denied the other allegations set forth in the Complaint. Further submitted that the amount claimed as compensation is exorbitant, exaggerated and without any substance, merit or rationale behind it. Hence, the Opposite Party prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.
4. On perusal of Complaint, Version and Documents the Commission raised the following points for consideration:-
1.Whether there is any deficiency in service, unfair trade practice
from the part of Opposite Party?
2. Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relieves as
prayed for?
3. Whether the Complainant is entitled to get compensation and
what order as to cost.
5. Point No. 1 to 3 :- For the sake of convenience and brevity all the points are considered together.
The Complainant had adduced oral evidence. He was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Ext. A1 to A3 from the side of the Complainant. On behalf of the Opposite Party, the Area Operations Manager of the Opposite Party filed affidavit and examined as OPW1 and the documents marked as Ext. B1 to B6.
6. It is accepted without dispute that the Complainant had taken a loan of Rs.10,00,000/- from the Opposite Party. At the time of taking the loan, the Complainant had deposited the Sale Deed No.1514/2000 of S.R.O Pulpally of his property to the Opposite Party. In addition to this, the Complainant had also deposited several other documents along with the Sale Deed. It is also accepted fact that the Original Sale Deed of the Complainant was lost at the hands of the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party said that though they were searching the document the same was not found. It is also accepted that the Opposite Parties have been searching the documents since September 2019 and the same was still not found. It is thus clear that there is no possibility of finding those documents in the future. The Opposite Party has not clarified as to how the document get lost. It is very clear that the document is lost due to negligence on the part of the Opposite Party. The mentioned document is an important one and is the principal sale / title deed for the property of the Complainant. The same cannot be made again. In order to secure the loan, the Opposite Party used to get the Sale Deed of the Customers and thus the responsibility of keeping those documents safe is the duty of the Opposite Party Bank. But the Opposite Party Bank did not keep the document safe, thus this depict the fault in the service of the Opposite Party.
7. The Opposite Party has lost the document due to their carelessness leading to physical, mental and financial difficulties to the Complainant and the Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service. Therefore, to cover the damages, the Complainant should get at least Rs.5,00,000/- from the Opposite Party. It is important to direct Opposite Parties to compensate for their carelessness so that Consumers/customers like the Complainant do not face such circumstances in future. Thus, it is suitable to impose the penalty of Rs.5,00,000/- against the Opposite Party.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the Opposite Party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Only) as compensation and Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand Only) as cost of the Complaint within one month from the date of the receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 27th day of September 2022.
Date of Filing:-01.11.2019.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. Shiju. P. J. Agriculture.
Witness for the Opposite Party:-
OPW1. Rajeesh. K. R. Bank Employee.
Exhibits for the Complainant:-
A1. Copy of Statement of Account.
A2. Copy of Letter. Dt:17.10.2019.
A3. Letter. Dt:18.10.2019.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party:-
B1. Copy of Malayala Manorama daily. Dt:05.12.2019.
B2. Copy of Affidavit. Dt:04.12.2019.
B3. Copy of Affidavit. Dt:20.12.2019.
B4. Copy of Postal Receipt. Dt:21.12.2019.
B5. Copy of Title Deed. Dt:19.12.2019.
B6. Copy of Paper Publication.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
CDRC, WAYANAD.
