State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Branch Manager Hdfc Limited vs Raveendran K A on 20 October, 2022
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM First Appeal No. A/16/578 ( Date of Filing : 05 Sep 2016 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 18/06/2016 in Case No. CC/17/2015 of District Malappuram) 1. THE BRANCH MANAGER HDFC LIMITED NAMSO CENTRE KIZHAKKETHALA CALICUT ROAD MALAPPURAM 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER HDFC LIMITED SEIKEN CHAMBERS FIRST FLOOR KANNUR ROAD CALICUT PIN 673001 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR H D F C LIMITED RAMAN HOUSE H T PAREKH MARG 169 BACKBAY RECLAMATION CHURCHGATE MUMBAI 400020 ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. RAVEENDRAN K A MADATHUMKUTTIYIL HOUSE KOLATHARA PO FEROKE CALICUT ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.K.SURENDRA MOHAN PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. SRI.T.S.P.MOOSATH JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.RANJIT.R MEMBER SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 20 Oct 2022 Final Order / Judgement KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No. 578/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 20.10.2022 (Against the Order in C.C. 17/2015 of CDRF, Malappuram) PRESENT: HON'BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.RANJIT. R : MEMBER APPELLANTS: The Branch Manager, H.D.F.C Limited, Namso Centre, Kizhakkethala, Calicut Road, Malappuram. The Branch Manager, H.D.F.C. Limited, Seiken Chambers, First Floor, Kannur Road, Calicut-673 001. The Managing Director, H.D.F.C. Limited, Raman House, H.T. Parekh Marg, 169, Backbay Reclamation, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020. (By Advs. Bijesh K. & Dinesh Sajan) Vs. RESPONDENT: Raveendran K.A., S/o Velayudhankutty Nair, Madathumkuttiyil House, Kolathara P.O., Feroke, Calicut. (By Adv. S. Reghukumar) JUDGMENT
HON'BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties in C.C. No. 17/2015 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Malappuram (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum for short). The complainant before the District Forum is the respondent. The appellants are aggrieved by the final order dated 18.06.2016 by which, the complaint of the respondent has been allowed by issuing a direction to them to locate document No. 2060/95 of the SRO, Feroke and to intimate that fact to the respondent and further to pay an amount of Rs. 20,000/- for the mental agony and hardships suffered by the respondent. A further amount of Rs. 10,000/- has been ordered to be paid for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by the appellants, along with an amount of Rs. 5,000/- as costs. If the documents are not traced out within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, the appellants are directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- more as compensation for the loss of the document together with a certificate from the bank stating that the document was lost while in their custody.
2. The complaint was filed in the following facts and circumstances:
The respondent alleged that while he was working as the Branch Manager of South Malabar Gramin Bank, Ariyallur Branch the executives of the 1st appellant approached him in the month of March 2006 and explained about the housing loan scheme offered by them. Thereafter, in April 2006 the respondent approached the office of the 1st appellant at Kizhakkethala, Malappuram and applied for a housing loan of Rs. 10,00,000/-. His loan account No. was 31761442/KMS. The respondent also handed over the original title deed of his property to the bank for creating an equitable mortgage. The documents deposited by him with the bank are Janmam Assignment Deed No. 2060/95 of the SRO Feroke in respect of the immovable property owned by him and three LIC policies of Rs. 1,00,000/- each. After verification and scrutiny of the documents the 1st appellant sent a letter to the respondent on 10.05.2006 intimating him that his loan application was approved and that a housing loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- had been sanctioned to him. However, due to certain personal reasons, he was not in a position to avail the loan for some time. Later, in the month of July 2006, though the respondent approached the office of the 1st appellant for disbursement of the loan amount, they did not disburse the loan. Thereafter, in the month of October 2007, on the direction of the 1st appellant the respondent had paid an amount of Rs. 750/- as endorsement fee for endorsing the LIC policies in favour of HDFC Bank. The respondent also requested the 1st appellant to disburse the loan as early as possible.
3. In the month of February 2008, the respondent approached the 1st appellant for getting the loan amount. Thereupon the 1st appellant informed the respondent that the documents entrusted by him were misplaced. Therefore, he insisted that the respondent should furnish fresh documents of another property along with certified copies of the lost documents, to create an equitable mortgage. After that, on several occasions the respondent requested for return of the original documents deposited by him. However there was no proper response from them. Till December 2011 the respondent approached the 1st appellant to get back the documents. But his efforts were all in vain.
4. During June 2012 the 1st appellant directed the respondent to approach the office of the 2nd appellant for availing the loan. The 2nd appellant insisted that the respondent should produce the title deed of one more property and that he should produce the paper publication stating that his title deed No. 2060/95 of the SRO Feroke was lost. Left with no other alternative, the respondent complied with both the above directions and finally on 23.08.2012 he received a letter from the 2nd appellant that his loan was sanctioned. After complying with all necessary formalities, the first instalment of the loan was disbursed in December 2012. In the July 2013 the respondent came to know that the document that was stated to have been lost was actually available in the possession and custody of the 1st appellant. Therefore, the respondent caused the issue of a notice through his lawyer on 26.09.2014 calling upon the 1st appellant to locate the document and to intimate him. The 1st appellant thereupon issued a reply dated 17.12.2014 denying all the statements in the respondent's notice. The respondent therefore approached the District Forum seeking compensation from the opposite parties for their deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
5. The complaint was contested by the appellants. According to their version, the respondent had applied for a housing loan for an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-. Along with the loan application he had submitted documents necessary for proving his source of income for repayment of the loan. It was based on the said documents that the loan was sanctioned on 10.05.2006. After that, despite repeated demands the respondent did not submit the title deed and other necessary documents for disbursement of the loan amount. Therefore, the sanction was cancelled on 29.01.2008. According to them, the respondent had never submitted his title deed to them and therefore, the document was not misplaced from their custody.
6. According to the appellants, on 10.08.2012 the respondent submitted a fresh loan application for Rs. 10,00,000/- before the 2nd appellant, as per loan account No. 605857343. The said loan was sanctioned in principle on 22.08.2012. After the loan was sanctioned, the 2nd appellant wanted the complainant to produce the title deed of his property and other documents. The respondent then informed the 2nd appellant that the title deed was irrecoverably lost. Thereafter he issued a paper publication in the Mathrubhumi daily dated 30.06.2012 and also produced certified copy of title deed No. 2060/95 of SRO, Feroke. Thereafter that, the loan amount was disbursed to him.
7. Both sides let in evidence on the above pleadings. On the side of the respondent/complainant, the evidence consists of his affidavit in lieu of chief examination and Exts. A1 to A5 documents. After close of the respondent/complainant's evidence, though the matter was posted for evidence of the appellants, they did not adduce any evidence. Therefore, the District Forum closed the evidence and passed final orders on the complaint.
8. According to the counsel for the appellants, the District Forum seriously went wrong in allowing the complaint. According to the learned counsel the respondent had not availed a loan from the 1st appellant at all. Though he had been sanctioned a loan for Rs. 10,00,000/-, the amount was not disbursed to him. He had therefore not produced his title deed before the 1st appellant, as alleged. The loan that was actually disbursed to him was sanctioned by the 2nd appellant. Admittedly, the respondent had not produced the title deed of his property as security for the said loan. Instead, he had published a notification in the Mathrubhumi daily stating that his title deed was irrecoverably lost. The contention of the learned counsel is that, in view of the said admission of the respondent that his title deed was lost, there was no justification for finding that the appellants were liable to compensate him for the said loss. The counsel therefore prayed for setting aside the order of the District Forum, vacating the findings against the appellants.
9. Heard. Considered the contentions put forward by the appellants. We have also perused the Lower Court Records called for by us from the District Forum. According to the respondent/complainant, his original title deed No. 2060/95 of the SRO, Feroke and three LIC policies were handed over by him to the 1st appellant as security for availing a housing loan for an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-. According to the appellants, no such original document was handed over to them, as alleged. In this case, there is evidence only on one side. The appellants have not adduced any evidence in support of their case. Ext. A1 is a certificate dated 23.07.2013 issued by the Authorized Signatory of the HDFC Bank. It has been certified in Ext. A1 that original title deed Nos. 2059/95 and 2060/95 with respect to 7.89 ares of property in survey No. 207/1 C-1, Cheruvannur Village, Kozhikode Taluk, Kozhikode district, had been submitted to the bank. The genuineness of Ext. A1 document is not disputed. Therefore, it is clear that the title deed of the respondent was submitted to the appellant bank as alleged by the respondent. As rightly concluded by the District Forum, since the bank had sanctioned a housing loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the respondent, such sanction would only have been on the basis of the title deeds of the respondent. In view of the above clinching evidence, we have no hesitation to hold that the District Forum was fully justified in allowing the complaint and awarding compensation. The reliefs granted are only reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case.
For the above reasons, the order of the District Forum is confirmed. This appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT T.S.P. MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER RANJIT. R : MEMBER jb [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.K.SURENDRA MOHAN] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. SRI.T.S.P.MOOSATH] JUDICIAL MEMBER [ SRI.RANJIT.R] MEMBER [ SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R] MEMBER