National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Pradeep Anand Shetty vs Standard Chartered Bank on 31 January, 2024
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2055 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 05/04/2018 in Appeal No. 1074/2015 of the State Commission Maharashtra) 1. PRADEEP ANAND SHETTY B-3/301, LOKNISARG, CHS., G.P. ROAD, VAISHALI NAGAR, MULUND,(W) MUMBAI-400080 MAHARAHSTRA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK REGISTERED OFFICE AT 270, 1ST FLOOR, D.N. ROAD, FORT, MUMBAI-400001 MAHARAHSTRA ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM VSM (Retd.),PRESIDING MEMBER
FOR THE PETITIONER : FOR THE APPELLANT : MS. SNEH SOMANI, PROXY COUNSEL
FOR MR. DEEPAK DHINGRA, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT : FOR THE RESPONDENT : MR. DEVMANI BANSAL, ADVOCATE
MR. PRATYUS SARANGI, ADVOCATE
Dated : 31 January 2024 ORDER
1. This Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act") against the Order dated 05.04.2018 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, ("the State Commission"), in FA No 1074 of 2015, against order dated 04.08.2015 in CC No. 256 of 2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Parel Mumbai ("the District Forum"), wherein the Complaint filed by the Complainant (Appellant herein) was partly allowed.
2. There was a delay of 12 days in filing the present Revision Petition by the Petitioner. The delay was condoned.
3. For clarity, the parties are identified as per original Complaint before the District Forum. Pradeep Anand Shetty is the Complainant and Standard Chartered Bank is denoted as Opposite Party (OP).
4. In Brief, the Complainant took a home loan of Rs.9,12,000/- from OP Bank on 07.05.2004. While availing loan he deposited original document i.e. original Agreement for Sale dated 01.12.2001 by creating mortgage the said loan. It is not in dispute that Complainant repaid all EMIs and repaid the loan and obtained 'No Dues Certificate' from the OP Bank. However, the OP Bank failed to return the original title deed in respect of the flat of the complainant. Consequently, the Complainant contends that due to the absence of the original documents, he has been unable to sell the flat, incurring continuous financial losses. Prospective buyers are not proceeding without reviewing the original title documents, he attributed the loss or misplacement of documents to OP Bank. Being Aggrieved he filed CC No.256 of 2013 before the District Forum seeking directives to OP for locating and returning the original Registered Sale Deed (bearing No. BDR3/8895/2001, dated 01/12/2001) within 30 days, along with compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/- for loss of documents, Rs. 1,50,000/- for mental agony and Rs. 30,000/- for litigation costs.
5. In their reply, the Appellant/OP Bank resisted the claim on the ground that the misplacement of the original sale deed occurred due to circumstances beyond their control. They asserted that they made earnest efforts to assist the Complainant within the legal limits and cooperated to address his concerns to the best of their ability. Despite undertaking measures such as advertising in newspapers to locate the document, the OP has been unsuccessful in tracing it. Moreover, the OP expressed readiness to fulfil their obligations under the law and emphasized their willingness to cooperate with the Complainant to resolve the matter amicably through negotiation. They affirmed their ongoing efforts to locate the missing document. Additionally, the OP denied the allegation that the Complainant suffered mental agony due to the loss of the original sale deed. Further, they rejected the claim that they provided deficient service to the Complainant. In conclusion, the Opposite Party requested for the dismissal of the complaint, along with costs.
6. The learned District Forum vide Order dated 04.08.2015, partially allowed the Complaint and directed as follows:-
8. According to the Complainant, the original registered sale deed of his flat is an valuable document. The Opposite Party ought to have keep the said document in safe custody and return it to the Complainant after closer of his loan account. According to the Complainant, he wants to dispose off his flat arid he wants to go in for a bigger one flat in view of his extended family and it is unable for him to do so due to the non availability of original sale deed. So also no prospective buyers are willing to purchase the said flat at the market value in the absence of original sale deed. The Complainant has not deposed in his evidence with whom and on which date talk of sale and purchase of fiat took place between the Complainant and prospective purchaser. The Complainant has not disclosed the name of prospective buyer. However, it is true the Complainant is required the original registered sale deed with him to show his clear title of the flat lo the purchaser in future when he is going to sale said flat. It is also true the registered sale deed of flat is a valuable document of title for the Complainant and the same is lost from the Opposite Party. The prospective purchaser of the flat has to verify the title of the said flat by inspection of the record of Sub-Registrar Office of previous 30 years prior to entering into the agreement for sale or prior to intended registered sale deed of the said flat. The sole document of registered sale deed is not sufficient to complete the' transaction. Under these circumstances the Complainant would be in need of a certificate regarding the loss of original registered sale deed of the flat with the hands of Opposite Party for the satisfaction of prospective purchaser in future. The Complainant has caused inconvenience due to the loss of original registered sale deed. There is also deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party of non-returning the original sale deed of the flat to the. Complainant. The Opposite Party has caused mental agony to the Complainant by misplacing the original sale deed of the flat. For the above reasons we find that the Opposite Party is liable to pay to the Complainant compensation Rs.50,000/- towards the loss caused due to the misplacement of original registered sale deed and Rs.5,000/- towards die mental agony caused to him and Rs.5.000/- cost of the litigation. It is also necessary to issue direction to the Opposite Party for issuing a certificate in favour of the Complainant regarding loss/misplacement of original sale deed bearing No. BDR/3/8895/2001, dtd.01/12/2001 deposited with the Opposite Party by the Complainant for creating mortgage of Flat No.B-3/301 Lok-Nisarg CHS, GP Read, Vaishali Nagar, Mulund (W), Mumbai which would be helpful to the Complainant for the sale of said flat. The said certificate would become part of the record of tile of the complaint over the flat. The above certificate and certified copy of the registered sale deed in question would become the documents, of title of the complaint over the flat purchased by him. In view of the above discussion we find that it is just to issue the above such direction to the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party is also liable to pay to the Complainant compensation Rs.50,000/--towards the loss caused due to misplacement of original registered sale deed and Rs.5,000/- for the mental agony which cased to the Complainant and Rs.5,000/- cost of the complaint.
O R D E R
Complaint No,256/2013 is partly allowed with cost against the Opposite Party.
The Opposite Party is directed to pay the Complainant compensation Rs.50.000/- (Rs- Fifty Thousand Only) towards loss caused due to misplacement of original registered sale deed bearing No. BDR/3/8895/2001, dtd. 01/12/2001.
The Opposite Party is directed to pay to the Complainant Rs.5.000/- (Rs. Five Thousand Only) towards mental agony caused to him and Rs.5,000/-(Rs. Five Thousand Only) towards cost of this complaint.
The Opposite Party is directed to issue a certificate in favour of the Complainant regarding loss/misplacement of original sale, deed document No. BDR/3/8895/2001. dtd.01/12/2001 executed & registered before the Sub-Registrar Kurla on 07/12/2001 and which was kept with Opposite Party for the security of house loan of Flat No.B-3/301 Lok-Nisarg CHS, G.P. Read, Vaishali Nagar, Mulund (W), Mumbai The Opposite Party is directed to comply the aforesaid within one month from the date of service of this order.
Certified copes of this order be furnished to the parties.
7. Dissatisfied by the District forum order the Complainant filed an Appeal No. FA/1074/2015 before the State Commission and questioned legality and validity of compensation in Award granted in his favour. The State Commission vide Order dated 05.04.2018 partly allowed the appeal and modified the District Forum's Order by increasing the compensation from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 50,000 towards mental agony. Consequently, the total compensation awarded stands at Rs. 1,00,000/-. To provide a succinct overview, relevant extracts from the State Commission's Order are reproduced below:
" [3] Our attention is invited to the ruling of Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission reported in [(1) (2017) CPJ 180 (NC)] in Bank of India v/s Must/a Ebrahim Nadiadwalla by Ld. Advocate for appellant. In that case, Hon'ble National Commission held that the Bank was liable to pay compensation to the complainant because the value of the property is bound to be affected if the original title deeds had been lost. In the facts and circumstances of that case, bank was directed to take necessary steps to issue NOG in favour of the complainant and to pay compensation in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for the loss of title deed. In that case, the subject matter of the consumer dispute was term loan in the sum of Rs. 10,48,000/- and equitable mortgage was created in respect of the said flat by depositing two Conveyance Deeds dated 02/02/1990 and 02/04/1990 with the said Bank. Bank did not return the original documents despite direction. Bank had also failed to file written version and affidavit in evidence. Here, in the present case it is not uncontested complaint but according to the opponent it is ready to do the needful to ensure that the complainant is able to sale or transfer the flat in question and can also take advantage of increasing prices in respect of the flat. However, to make that possible it is but essential that the opponent shall do the needful as early as possible to trace the documents if they are misplaced and return the original to the complainant or in the event of failure to trace the document or found in the bank, they shall issue Loss /misplacement of Document Certificate and also obtain copy from the Sub-Registrar concerned in respect of the agreement for sale of original title deeds which were deposited by the complainant with the bank. Unless this is done as early as possible it would not be feasible for the complainant to enter into transaction of transfer with third party in respect of the flat in question. In the present case, opponent was already directed to issue a certificate in favour of complainant regarding Loss/ Misplacement of original sale deed document deposited with it as security for the home loan availed of. Ld. Advocate for respondent states that since complainant has filed appeal this direction (iv) of the final order dated 04/08/2015 of Ld. District Forum is not yet complied with. In our view, this is not excusable on the part of the bank not to issue certificate in favour of the complainant as directed merely because complainant decided to challenge the award or insufficiency thereof. Considering the nature of grievance that complainant was unable to enter into any transaction for sale or transfer of flat bearing No. B-3, 301, Lok Nisarg C.H.S., G.P. Road, Vaishali Nagar, Mulund (W), Mumbai. We think that considering the increasing prices of the flats in Mumbai, the complainant may suffer on account of not reselling of the flat and to get the full and expected consideration though prices of the immovable property in Mumbai are on the rise. Therefore, balanced view has to be taken to direct the opponent bank to issue a certificate regarding loss or misplacement of original sale deed document as mentioned in the operative part (iv) of the impugned order by Ld. Forum below. Compliance of this direction shall be made within 90 days from the date of this order failing which he opponent bank shall pay compensation in the sum of Rs.50,000/- per month to the complainant till the direction of the impugned order is complied passed by the Ld. District Forum. Compensation on account of mental anguish which was granted in the sum of Rs.5,000/- increased to sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) apart from the compensation already granted and modified as above in respect of clause (iv) of the impugned order of the Ld. District Forum. We, therefore, partly allow the appeal and modify order as follows-
ORDER [1] Appeal is partly allowed and modified as under-
"In direction (iv) of the impugned order the opponent is directed to pay to the complainant sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) towards mental agony caused and sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards costs of complaint. We also award costs of appeal in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) payable by opponent bank to the complainant and further direct in terms of (iv) that the direction in the operative part of the final order of Ld. District Forum below shall be complied with within 90 days from today. Failing which opponent Bank shall pay compensation in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) per month for each defaulting month together with interest @9% p.a. shall be paid to the complainant till the direction (iv) mentioned in operative part of the final order passed by Ld. District Forum, is complied with. Opponent bank may approach Sub-Registrar to obtain the certified copy of the original sale deed and may supply the same to the complainant. For compliance of order by the bank necessary co-operation shall be extended by the complainant."
8. Dissatisfied by the Order dated 05.04.2018 passed by the learned State Commission, the Petitioner/Complainant filed the instant Revision Petition No. 2055 of 2018. Once again, the Petitioner questioned the legality and validity of the compensation awarded in his favor by the learned State Commission. Additionally, the Revision Petition seeks the grant of relief originally prayed for in the initial complaint.
9. Heard the Learned Counsel for both the parties. Perused the entire material on record, including the Orders of both the fora.
10. It is seen that the learned District Forum and the learned State Commission have appropriately appreciated the facts, contentions and evidence, and passed detailed and well reasoned Orders.
11. It is a well settled position in law that revision under section 58(1)(b) of the Act, 2019, (which are pari materia to Section 21(b) of the Act, 1986) confers very limited jurisdiction on this Commission. In the present case there are concurrent findings of the facts and the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is limited. I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned Order passed by the State Commission warranting any interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 58(1)(b) of the Act. I would like to rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. State Bank of India & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 432 OF 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022, it was held that the revisional Jurisdiction of this Commission is extremely limited by observing as under: -
"9. It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required. ....."
13. Further, in Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. (2022) 9 SCC 31 has held that:-
As per Section 21(b) the National Commission shall have jurisdiction to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Thus, the powers of the National Commission are very limited. Only in a case where it is found that the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested illegally or with material irregularity, the National Commission would be justified in exercising the revisional jurisdiction. In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record.
14. Based on the discussion above, in the absence of any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned Order passed by the State Commission, I do not find any merit in the present Revision Petition and the same is dismissed. Consequently, the impugned Order passed by the State Commission is upheld.
15. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, there shall be no order as to costs.
16. All other pending Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
................................................................................... AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM VSM (Retd.) PRESIDING MEMBER