State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sri Shyamal Kumar Ray vs State Bank Of India (Racpc) on 4 October, 2018
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 Complaint Case No. CC/390/2016 ( Date of Filing : 01 Sep 2016 ) 1. Sri Shyamal Kumar Ray S/o Sri Saroj Kumar Roy, 4, Baranashi Ghosh Lane, Kolkata - 700 006, P.S.- Girish Park. 2. Sarbani Roy W/o Sri Shyamal Kr. Ray, 4, Baranashi Ghosh Lane, Kolkata - 700 006, P.S.- Girish Park. ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. State Bank of India (RACPC) Regd. office at 1, Middleton Street, 4th Floor, Kolkata - 700 071. 2. R.D.B. Realty Infrastructure Ltd. Bikaneer Building, 1st Floor, Room no. 10 & 11, 8/1, Lalbazar Street, Kolkata - 700 001. 3. Pradeep Pugalia, Director, R.D.B. Realty & Infrastructure Ltd. Bikaneer Building, 1st Floor, Room no. 10 & 11, 8/1, Lalbazar Street, Kolkata - 700 001. ............Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER For the Complainant: Ms. Sonali Bhattacharya, Mr. Ashok Ghosh, Advocate For the Opp. Party: Sayantan Banerjee. Indrani Chakraborty., Advocate Dated : 04 Oct 2018 Final Order / Judgement Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
This is a complaint filed by one Sri Shyamal Kumar Ray and his wife, Smt. Sarbani Ray alleging non-receipt of the original IGR in respect of their flat and car parking space from the OPs.
Case of the Complainants, as narrated in the petition of complaint, briefly stated, is that, the Complainants purchased the subject flat and car parking space with the financial assistance of the OP No. 1. After liquidating the entire loan on 05-05-2015, which has been confirmed by the OP No. 1 by issuing necessary 'No due Certificate" of even date in their favour, the Complainants asked for return of the original IGR from the OPs, but to no avail. Therefore, the complaint case.
It appears from the postal AD Card that notice of this complaint case was served upon the OP No. 1 on 23-12-2016. However, it did not turn up before this Commission to defend its case. Therefore, the case was heard ex parte against this OP.
OP No. 2&3, on notice, turned up before this Commission and contested the case by filing WV, affidavit in service and also reply to the questionnaire under affidavit being put forth by the Complainants. It is submitted by these OPs that after completion of the entire building, the subject flat and car parking space were handed over to the Complainants by issuing necessary letter of possession. They also executed and registered the Deed of Conveyance in favour of the Complainants after receiving the balance consideration amount from them and admittedly, the Complainants are in possession of the said flat and car parking space. Further case of these OPs is that, as per the Banking rules, after registration of the Deed of Conveyance, authorized person of the Bank collects the same and retains the IGR till satisfactory liquidation of the entire loan and thereafter the same is returned to the original owner. It is asserted by these OPs that in this particular case, the Bank collected the original Deed of Conveyance of the Complainants and retained the same in its custody and if the Complainants have fully repaid the loan, as they have stated in the petition of complaint, it is the obligation of the OP No. 1 to return the original Deed of Conveyance to the Complainants and these OPs have got nothing to do in this regard. The matter is completely in between the Complainants and the OP No. 1 and if there is any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the OP No. 1, then it should face the consequences.
The moot point for determination in this case is whether the Complainants are entitled to the relief sought for by them in the petition of complaint, or not.
Decision with reasons I have heard the submission made by the Ld. Advocates on behalf of the Complainants and the OP Nos. 2&3. I have also perused the material on record carefully.
In his Affidavit of Evidence, the OP No. 3 stated that he has neither received the IGR nor he was supposed to receive the same nor he has had any concern with the same. However, it transpires from the copy of the letter dated 10-06-2016, written by the OP No. 2 addressed to the Ld. Advocate of the Complainants, of which the OP No. 3 happens to be one of the Directors, that, after receiving the signed IGR receipt, the same was handed over to the OP No. 1 Bank. Incidentally, similar averment was made by the OP No. 2 in its letter to the Complainants dated 13-06-2016. However, no such documentary proof is furnished from the side of the OP Nos. 2&3 to establish that the concerned IGR receipt was handed over to the OP No. 1.
Further, it transpires from the copy of letter dated 22-09-2015, written by the OP No. 1 to the OP No. 2 that vide such letter, the former informed the latter about non-receipt of the original IGR. There is nothing on record to show that the OP Nos. 2&3 ever refuted such allegation of the OP No. 1.
In case, the original copy of the IGR was indeed taken by the OP No. 1 from the Registration Office, the OP Nos. 2&3 could prove such fact by furnishing cogent documentary proof in this regard. However, for the reasons best known to them, they made no such endeavour.
Thus, I find that the OP Nos. 2&3 have miserably failed to establish that the concerned IGR receipt or original copy of the same was handed over to the OP No. 1.
In my considered opinion, therefore, the buck stops at the doorstep of the OP Nos. 2 and 3 to do the needful in this regard.
Having said that, I cannot exonerate the OP No. 1 completely out of the hook because it was incumbent on its part to maintain close liaison with the OP Nos. 2&3 till the original IFR copy was received by it. However, as it appears, the OP No. 1 woken up from its deep slumber only after the loan amount was repaid and the Complainants insisted upon it to return the original IGR. It was a clear act of gross negligence on its part.
Accordingly, the complaint case succeeds.
Hence, O R D E R E D The complaint case stands allowed on contest against the OP Nos. 2&3 and ex parte against the OP No. 1 with a cost of Rs. 25,000/- being equally payable by the OP No. 1 and OP Nos. 2&3. OP Nos. 2&3 are directed to handover the original IGR to the Complainants through the OP Nos. 1 within 40 days from today. OP No. 1 and OP Nos. 2&3 are also directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 50,000/-, respectively, to the Complainants failing which, they shall be liable to pay simple interest over the aforementioned awarded compensation @ 9% p.a. from 01-09-2016 till they full discharge their obligation under this order. [HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA] PRESIDING MEMBER