State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Axis Bank Ltd. vs Reena Randhar & Others on 7 August, 2015
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSALCOMMISSION, PUNJAB,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.530 of 2014
Date of institution: 08.05.2014
Date of Decision: 07.08.2015
1. The Axis Bank Limited, Trishul, 3rd Floor, Opposite
Samartheshwar Temple, near Law Garden, Ellisbridge,
Ahmadabad 380006 through its Managing Director.
2. The Axis Bank Limited, Corporate Office, Bombay Dyeing Mille
Compound, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai 400025,
through its Director.
3. The Axis Bank Limited, Near Jawahar Market, above Federal
Bank, Jalandhar City through its Branch Manager
Appellants/OPs
Versus
1. Mrs. Reena Randhar wife of Shri Manoj Kumar, resident of
House No.11, New Deol Nagar, Neel Kant Colony, Jalandhar
City.
2. Shri Manoj Randhar son of Shri Shankar Lal, resident of House
No.11, New Deol Nagar, Neel Kant Colony, Jalandhar City.
Respondents/complainants
First Appeal against order dated
04.04.2014 of District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum,
Jalandhar.
Before:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Shri. Jasbir Singh Gill, Member
Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Mohinder Singh, Advocate
For respondent No.1 : Sh. Jasmeet Ghuman, Advocate
For respondent No.2 : Mrs. Kavita Sharma, Advocate
FA No 530 of 2014 2
Jasbir Singh Gill, Member
ORDER
The appeal has been filed by the appellants/opposite parties (hereinafter referred as OPs) against the impugned order dated 04.04.2014 passed in CC No.24 of 2012 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (hereinafter in short District Forum), vide which the complaint of respondents/complainants (herein after referred as complainants) was partly allowed/accepted and the OP Bank was directed to lodge the DDR with the police regarding the loss or misplacing of sale deed and further issue certificate to the complainant No.1 regarding the loss of misplacing of the sale deed by the Bank. The Bank was further directed to issue notice in this regard in two newspapers having circulation in the state of Punjab and also directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant No.1 and Rs.3000/- on account of litigation expenses.
2. A consumer complaint was filed by the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter referred as Act) against the OPs on the allegation that the complainant in the month of April, 2010 approached OP No.3 for the loan to the tune of Rs.16,87,455/- for the purchase of house situated at Deol Nagar, Jalandhar City which was sanctioned vide agreement No.PHR015500232705. The complainant submitted all the necessary documents requisite for the grant of loan as desired by OP. He further stated that on 21.04.2010 he approached the deed writer in Tehsil Complex, Jalandhar for the execution of the sale deed in question. The sale deed bearing No.517 of the property was executed in favour of FA No 530 of 2014 3 complainant No.1 and the pay order issued by OP No.3, was handed over to Mr. Sukh Mohan Singh, the Seller by the clerk of advocate of the bank after verifying the previous property document from him. Since, the complainants have made numerous requests to OPs to issue an attested copy of the sale deed and further to confirm the receipt of the original sale deed favouring the complainant No.1 but all in vain. This Act put the complainant to great shock and mental harassment. The complainant further pleaded that she visited many time to the Branch of OPs with request to confirm the receipt of original sale deed in question but OPs had been putting off the matter on one pretext or the other and even lodged a complainant with the customer service department of OPs by unique reference No.1987180 on 21.03.2011, which yielded no result. The legal notice dated 01.04.2011 was issued by Advocate Sh. Sushil Mehta on behalf of the complainant which was never replied. Hence, the complaint with the prayer that OPs be directed to recall legal notice dated 01.04.2011 and be directed to supply a attested copy of the original sale deed in question kept by OPs and be further directed to acknowledge the receipt of the original sale deed in question and if OPs fail to do so in alternative, OPs may kindly be directed to execute fresh sale deed at their own expenses and complainants further prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- for causing mental tension, harassment and Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice, OPs contested the complaint and filed written reply taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint was not maintainable being false and material facts were suppressed. The FA No 530 of 2014 4 true facts were that the sale deed was executed in the office of Sub Registrar, Jalandhar. Since then the officials of the bank as well as their lawyer were following the customer for the sale deed. Officials of the bank as well as their lawyer contacted the Axis sale Ex. At that time Mr. Deepak contacted the customer regarding original document and confirmed it from officials of the bank as well as their lawyer that customer was having the original document. He was just delaying the matter on the pretext that he was out of station or that he would hand over the sale deed to them as sale deed was not traceable and he will return as soon as he get the same. Sometimes, he took the excuse that he had already handed over to some person and he would revert after confirming the same. When the officials of the bank asked him to return the title document immediately otherwise officials of the bank will take legal action, he immediately handed over the fresh photocopies of the sale deed. Officials of the bank again requested him and asked for original title document but he denied to hand-over the same. Other allegations made in the complaint were also denied.
4. Both the parties tendered their evidence before the District Forum. Complainant tendered into evidence the affidavit Ex.C-A and Ex.C-B along with copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9 and closed his evidence. On the other hand the counsel for the OPs has tendered into evidence affidavit as Ex.OP-A along with the copies of documents Ex.01 to Ex.04 and closed the evidence.
5. After going through the record and documents the Learned District Forum partly accepted the complainant as referred above.
6. The OPs filed appeal against the impugned order.
FA No 530 of 2014 5
7. We have heard the counsel for both the parties.
8. The counsel for the OPs has stated that sale deed in question before the Sub Registrar, Jalandhar was executed and the complainant procured the said sale deed from the office of Sub Registrar and did not hand over to the bank. It was further stated the employee of the bank contacted the complainant regarding the original documents but the complainant was just delaying the matter on the pretext that she is out of station or that the same was not traceable and later on refused to hand-over the same. The finding of the Learned District Forum are based on the conjectures and surmises and against the facts and circumstances, therefore, the order dated 04.04.2014 is liable to be set aside.
9. The counsel for the complainant argued that the bank had received the sale deed in question. A sum of Rs.16,87,455/- was sanctioned and disbursed. The sale deed was executed on 21.04.2010. In case OPs had not received the sale deed in question which was necessary to create equitable mortgage with the bank they would not have kept silent till the service of legal notice dated 24.02.2011. Keeping silence for about 10 months in a way tends to prove that the bank had actually received the sale deed in question.
10. We perused the record and documents.
11. It is not disputed that complainant had obtained the loan of Rs.16,87,455/- for the purchase of house from the OP Bank. The payment of the sale consideration regarding the home purchased by the complainant was made by the Bank to the seller. Dispute is whether after execution and registration of the sale deed the same FA No 530 of 2014 6 was received by the complainant and it was deposited with the Bank or it was never deposited with the Bank as alleged.
12. We have perused the affidavit Ex.O-1/3 Ashish Kapoor in which it has been mentioned that the complainant was having the original document when the officials of the bank asked him to deposit the title document immediately otherwise they will take the legal action the complainant immediately handed over the fresh photocopy of the sale deed. In the legal notice it was mentioned that original sale deed was taken by the complainant from the Sub Registrar, Jalandhar, which was denied by the complainant in reply to the legal notice.
13. However, the complainant alleged that the sale deed in question was taken by the clerk of the bank or their lawyer. The complainant has not produced any evidence that the sale deed was taken by the Bank from him or from the office of the Sub Registrar. The complainant has also not proved that on account of non- availability of original title deed the market price of the property was reduced or he would not be able to get the mortgaged with any financial institution. Duplicate of the original can be taken after recorded the report of the loss of the original.
14. As per the above discussion, we are of the view that District Forum have failed to give reasoning, how the complainant is entitled to the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- when it was not proved that the sale deed of the property in question was actually deposited with the OPs. Therefore, the order passed by the District Forum cannot be sustained. The appeal is accepted and order of the District FA No 530 of 2014 7 Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.
15. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs.25,000/- + Rs.25,000/- = Rs.50,000/-) at the time of filing of the appeal with this Commission. This amount of Rs. 50,000/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant No.3 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant. Subject to stay if any by higher Fora/Court.
16. Arguments in this appeal were heard on 23.07.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules. Appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Gurcharan Singh Saran)
` Presiding Judicial Member
(Jasbir Singh Gill)
Member
August 07, 2015. (Surinder Pal Kaur)
PK/- Member