National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Can Fin Homes Ltd vs Shri J Bhaskaran & 4 Anr on 11 August, 2020
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 500 OF 2020 (Against the Order dated 20/02/2020 in Complaint No. 323/2018 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. CAN FIN HOMES LTD NO. 69 (OLD NO. 35), 12TH, MAIN, JAYANAGAR BRANCH, 3RD BLOCK EAST, BENGALURU-560011 ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. SHRI J BHASKARAN & 4 ANR NO. 4, 1ST MAIN, PHASE-2, RAMANASREE NAGAR KAMMANAHALLI ROAD, OFF B.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560026 2. SMT. V.E. POONGKODI W/O. J BHASKARAN, NO. 4, 1ST MAIN, PHASE-2, RAMANASREE NAGAR, KAMMANAHALLI ROAD, OFF. B.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560026 3. MR. MADHUKAR ASSIT GENERAL MANAGER, CAN FIN HOMES LTD., NO. 69 (OLD NO. 35), 12TH MAIN, JAYANAGAR BRANCH3RD BLOCK EAST, BENGALURU-560011 4. SRI SARDA KUMAR HOTA MD & CEO, CAN FIN HOMES LTD., NO. 29/1 SIR M N KRISHNA RAO, ROAD, BALBAGH WEST, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE-560004 5. MR. ATUNU BAGCHI HEAD OF CUSTOMER COMPLIANT & GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL CELL & CFO CAN FIN HOMES LTD., NO. 29/1, FIN M N KRISHNA RAO ROAD, LALBGH WEST, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560004 ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Appellant : Mr. Rajeev Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent :
Dated : 11 Aug 2020 ORDER
MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)
The complainants took a housing loan of Rs.85 lacs from the petitioner in two tranches. The complainants deposited the original Title Deeds of their immovable property with the appellant in order to secure the loan. However, the original documents including the Title Deeds were not returned to the complainants despite payment of the loan. The complainants therefore, approached the concerned State Commission by way of a Consumer Complaint.
2. The complaint was resisted by the appellant which inter-alia stated in its written version that the documents had been misplaced and they were not able to trace the documents despite best efforts. It was also stated that they had lodged a complaint with the concerned Police Station and had also published notices in two newspapers about loss of the documents, with their own expenditure. The certified copies of the documents were also obtained and the complainants were asked to collect those certified copies.
3. The State Commission, vide its order dated 20.02.2020, directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.9 lacs as compensation to the complainants alongwith the cost of litigation quantified at Rs.5,000/-. The certified copies were also directed to be delivered to the complainants. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the appellant is before this Commission.
4. It is not in dispute that the original documents including the original Title Deeds were deposited by the complainants with the appellant in order to secure the loan and they had created a mortgage by deposit of those documents with the appellant company. It was the bounding duty of the appellant company to keep those important documents in safe custody and return them to the complainants on repayment of the loan. The very fact that the documents are still not traceable, clearly shows that the appellant has been grossly negligent in rendering services to the complainants since due care was not taken to keep the documents in safe custody.
5. The issue involved in this matter came up for consideration of this Commission in State Bank of India Vs. Amitesh Mazumder RP No.2732 of 2019 decided on 03.01.2020 and the following view was taken:
5. Three submissions have been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. His first submission is that the bank is ready to provide the certified copy of the Title Deeds to the complainant. His second submission is that the bank will issue a Certificate to the complainant admitting the deposit of Title Deeds with the bank and its inability to return the same to the complainant. His third submission is that the petitioner bank shall bear the cost of issuing a public notice in the newspapers with respect to the loss of the Title Deed. This is also the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner bank that the revenue record in respect of the immovable property in question is available with the complainant and can be used by him to establish his title.
6. In my opinion, even if all the steps suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner are taken by the petitioner bank, that would not result in the complainant realizing the true market value of the immovable property in question, if he decides to sell the same in the market. No one in the market will agree to purchase an immovable property on payment of its prevailing market value, if he knows that the original Title Deed of the property will not be delivered to him by the seller. There will always be an apprehension of the misuse of the Title Deeds of the immovable property by an unscrupulous person, by depositing the same with a bonafide lender, since an Equitable Mortgage can be created by deposit of the Title Deeds. The erosion in the value of the property if it is to be sold without the Title Deeds, would be substantial and in fact even the compensation awarded by the District Forum and maintained by the State Commission may not be sufficient to make up such erosion in the market value of the property. Moreover, if the complainant decides to take a loan by deposit of the Title Deeds of the property against the property, he will not be able to get a ready lender in the market unless the Title Deeds of the property are deposited. In fact, even a bank may be unwilling to give a loan against an immovable property unless the Title Deeds of the property are deposited with it. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the fora below was eminently justified on account of the petitioner bank having lost the Title Deeds of the immovable property of the complainant. The view taken by the fora below does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The Revision Petition is therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.
6. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the payment of compensation to the complainant was fully justified. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the compensation awarded by the State Commission is on higher side and should be suitably reduced. I however, find no justification to reduce the compensation. The complainants had taken a housing loan of as much as Rs.85 lacs from the appellant. This would mean that the value of the property cannot be less than Rs.1 Crore since some margin money is required to be contributed by the borrower. The compensation awarded by the State Commission does not constitute even 10% of the market value of the property. Therefore, the erosion in the resale value of the property, in my opinion, would be much more on account of the original documents having been lost by the appellant. The appeal therefore, being devoid of any merits, is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
......................J V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER