State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Putcha Srinivasulu Son Of Sri Krishna ... vs 1.Union Bank Of India, Ramanthapur ... on 8 March, 2018
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM Telangana Complaint Case No. CC/86/2014 ( Date of Filing : 28 Mar 2014 ) 1. Putcha Srinivasulu Son of Sri Krishna Murthy, Aged about 43 Years, Occ Purohith R.o. H.No.12.11.1254, Flat No.101, First Floor, Sri Sai Vasishnavi Constructions, Boudhanagar, Warasiguda, Secunderabad 500 061 ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. 1.Union Bank of India, Ramanthapur Branch, Rep. by t he Branch Manager, D.No.2.3.506 by A and B, Amberpet Main Road, Hyderabad 500 013 AP 2. 2.The Deputy General Manager, Union Bank of India, Regional Office, Second Floor, D.No.6.3.664, Prestige Roy Towers, Opp. NIMS Hospital, Punjagutta Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad 500 082 AP 3. 3.Head Union Bank of India Customer Grievances Cell, Head Office, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhawan, Mumbai 400 021 Maharastra State ............Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. N. RAO NALLA PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. Sri. PATIL VITHAL RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Complainant: For the Opp. Party: Dated : 08 Mar 2018 Final Order / Judgement BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA : AT HYDERABAD CC NO. 86 OF 2014 Between : Putcha Srinivasulu S/o Sri Krishna Murthy Aged about 43 years, Occ: Purohith, R/o H.No.12-11-1254, Flat No.101, First Floor, Sri Sai Vaishnavi Constructions Boudhnagar, Warasiguda, Secunderabad-500061 Complainant A N D Union Bank of India Ramanthapur Branch Rep. by the Branch Manager D.No.2-3-506/A&B, Amberpet Main Road, Hyderabad-500013 The Deputy General Manager Union Bank of India, Regional Office Second Floor, D.No.6-3-664, Prestige Roy Towers, Opp. NIMS Hospital Punjagutta Road, Somajiguda Head, Union Bank of India Customer Grievances Cell Head Office, Union Bank Bhavan 239, Vidhan Bhawan, Maharastra State Opposite parties Counsel for the Complainant Dr.P.Bhaskara Mohan Counsel for the Opposite parties M/s Golla Seshadri QUORUM : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA, PRESIDENT & SRI PATIL VITHAL RAO, MEMBER
THURSDAY THE EIGTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND EIGHTEEN Oral Order : (per Hon'ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon'ble President) *** The complaint is filed under section 17 (1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the Complainant to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.32,00,000/- towards loss of sale consideration; to pay Rs.2,70,000/- towards reimbursement of interest paid by the complainant w.e.f. June, 2013 till March 2014 to private financers on the borrowed amount of Rs.30 lakhs; to pay Rs.30,000/- per month towards reimbursement of interest payable by the complainant from April, 2014 till the principal is cleared off to private financers on the borrowed amount of Rs.30 lakhs; to pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards damages; to pay Rs.50,000/- towards legal expenses; to pay interest @ 18% on the above stated amounts from 03.06.2013 and to direct the opposite parties to furnish an Indemnity Bond, undertaking to indemnify the complainant for any loss or damage, to furnish FIR copy from the Police Station having jurisdiction and further furnish a duplicate copy of the title deed with a stamp paper purchased in the name of the Bank.
2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the complainant has availed housing loan from the opposite party no.1 on 05.09.2006 to purchase a flat no.101 on First Floor, Devi Nandanam Apartments. On 03.06.2013 the complainant approached the opposite party no.1 to close the said housing loan account as he was inclined to sell his house property and purchase another flat. But the opposite party no.1 informed the complainant that the documents of title to the property kept under the custody of opposite party no.1 were misplaced and assured that they would inform the complainant whenever they traced the documents. The complainant entered into an agreement of sale to sell the flat with one Sarang Veeresh by receiving an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as an advance out of total sale consideration of Rs.32 lakhs. As the documents were not traced the prospective purchaser demanded for return of the advance money from the complainant during August 2013. As there is no alternative, the complainant returned the said amount to him. When the complainant intended to sell the flat without original tittle deeds the real estate brokers brought down the price of the said flat from Rs.32 lakhs to Rs.25 lakhs. Yet, the complainant entered into an agreement of sale to sell the flat to one Ch.Venkatesam for a total consideration of Rs.25 lakhs and also received an advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from him. The said purchaser demanded certain documents to be obtained from the opposite party no.1 Bank as a safety measure and as such the complainant visited the opposite party no.1 bank with representation dated 7.12.2013 requesting to furnish the following documents.
1. Certificate indicating that the documents pertaining to the complainant are misplaced from the custody of the Bank
2. FIR Copy
3. Paper publication
4. Certified copies of all the documents kept under the custody of the Bank.
5. Cancellation of the Mortgage Deed between the Bank and the complainant.
6. No dues Certificate on payment of the dues
7. Undertaking from the Bank
8. Indemnity Bond.
3. As the opposite party no.1 bank did not respond the prospective purchaser demanded for return of the advance amount and the complainant on 06.01.2014 refunded the same to him. On 15.01.2014 the opposite party no.1 gave a letter to the complainant stating that the Bank could not still trace the original documents and to that effect they issued a certificate. Further a certified copy of the document from SRO, Marredpally in lieu of original document is enclosed while refusing to give FIR, paper publication and indemnity bond. Subsequently the complainant got issued a legal notice dated 25.01.2014 to the opposite parties. The complainant raised from private sources an amount of Rs.30 lakhs and for that he has been paying interest amounting to Rs.30,000/- per month w.e.f July 2013. Had the documents been available, the flat at Brahmana Basthi would have been sold for Rs.32 lakhs as originally agreed and that the complainant would not have to raise any loan amounts from private persons for the new flat. The irony is that the complainant requested the opposite party no.1 for grant of housing loan on the duplicate copy of the title deed obtained by the Bank relating to the house property but the Bank refused to give any loan. While so on 06.03.2014 along with reply notice the opposite party no.1 sent copies of paper publication published in Hindu and Andhra Bhoomi, a police complaint dated 15.02.2014 with an affidavit and a certified copy of the document NO.2510 of 2006 issued by Sub-Registrar, an EC and an undertaking. However, no indemnity bond was enclosed. Further the certified copy of the document depicts that the stamp paper was purchased directly in the name of the complainant whereas it should have been in the name of the Bank. There is no FIR copy and the police complaint does not bear any stamp/seal of the police station. Against the said discrepancies the complainant's advocate sent his objections dated 10.03.2014 to the opposite party no.1 but there is no reply from them. Hence, the complaint with the prayers as stated in paragraph no.1, supra.
4. The opposite party no.1 filed its counter which was adopted by the opposite parties no.2 and 3. The opposite party no.1 while resisting the case contended that the opposite party no.1 Bank never informed to the complainant about misplacement of document until the complainant came to the Bank for payment of entire loan amount. The complainant vide his representation dated 27.12.2013 requested the opposite party no.1 to furnish the above said documents without paying the outstanding loan and that the complainant has to explain why he has asked those documents without any proper information from the bank about the loss of documents. The complainant on 13.01.2014 paid all the dues on the said housing loan account and obtained the no dues certificate and that they have issued a letter to the complainant stating that the Bank could not trace the original documents and that they are enclosing a certificate indicating that the documents pertaining to the flat are not traceable and the bank undertakes to hand over the same whenever the documents are traced. After receipt of the legal notice, the opposite party no.1 gave a detailed reply dated 1.02.2014 stating that the Bank would supply a paper publication, certified copy of the documents from sub-Registrar's office, certificate about the missing document, FIR copy and an undertaking. The opposite party no.1 immediately submitted a complaint dated 15.02.2014 to the Amberpet Police and got issued a publication in Andhra Bhoomi and Hindu Daily News Per on 16.02.2014 and 17.02.2014 respectively about the missing of document. Thereafter, the opposite party no.1 sent a letter dated 06.03.2014 along with paper publication dated 16.02.2014 published in Hindu, Andhra Bhoomi, police complaint dated 15.02.2014 along with the affidavit, certified copy of the document No.2510 of 2006 issued by the Sub-Registrar, Maredpally, Encumbrance Certificate dated 20.02.2014 and copy of letter dated 15.01.2014 in which the bank has given an undertaking to handover the original document whenever it is traced. With regard to indemnity bond, usually the public institutions will not give indemnity bonds to the private individuals as such the opposite party no.1 is not in a position to execute indemnity bond as it is policy decision. Therefore, the opposite party no.1 endorsed on the back side of the certified copy of the document about loss of document with an intention that there will not be any problems in future and it clearly indicates that the original is misplaced in the bank and that the complainant can be used in the place of original. The complaint is not maintainable as the reading of pleadings, the complainant demanding damages in respect of the loss of document and there is no deficiency in service in order to deliver the document and that the opposite party no.1 is not in a position to deliver the original as the same is not traced in the Bank. The complainant is not entitled to any relief as he is claiming damages against the opposite parties with regard to loss of documents. Hence, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. In support of his claim, the complainant filed his evidence affidavit and got Exs.A1 to A19 marked. On behalf of the opposite parties, the Branch Manager of opposite party no.1 filed his evidence affidavit and got Exs.B1 to B15 marked.
6. Sri N.Janaiah, Advocate represents counsel on record for complainant and was heard. Written arguments of both parties were filed. Counsel on both sides present and were heard. The counsel for both parties have filed their written arguments.
7. In the light of averments of the parties and the material filed by them the following points arise for consideration:-
(i) Where there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and whether the complainant is entitle for the reliefs as prayed for ? (ii) To what relief ? 8. POINTS NO.1 AND 2 There is no dispute that the complainant availed Housing Loan from the opposite party no.1 on 05.09.2006 by depositing the original title deed of the property. There is also no dispute that the housing loan amount was repaid and the housing loan Account was closed but the Bank could not hand over the said title deed to the complainant as the same were not traceable. There is also no dispute that the opposite parties issued pubic notices in Andhra Bhoomi and The Hindu newspapers published on 16.02.2014 and further there is also no dispute on the insistence of the complainant, the bank has issued police complaint dated 15.02.2014 along with the affidavit, certified copy of the document No.2510 of 2006 issued by the Sub-Registrar, Encumbrance Certificate dated 20.02.2014 and the copy of letter dated 15.01.2014 in which the bank has given undertaking to handover the original whenever it is traced. There is also no dispute that the Bank of the opposite parties has not so far returned the documents. The contention of the complainant is that he had already sold the property to third party at lesser value due to misplacement of the original title deed, by opposite party no.1 Bank. 9. The opposite party no.1 resisted the allegations of complainant contending that they are all false and concocted allegations made for the purpose of creating frivolous and vexatious litigation with inflated and untenable claims. Further at the request of the complainant they have issued the above said documents. The only dispute is with regard to return of original documents from the Bank. Banks are playing pivotal role in the society. People repose confidence in the banks. The Banks are engaging their services in every walks of life in one way or the other. People are approaching banks for security purposes also. They are providing loans by mortgaging important valuable documents. After discharging loan amounts, non-delivery of the mortgaged documents amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the banks. Here, in the case on hand, the complainant had discharged the housing loan back . While admitting that the title deed pertaining to the property of the complainant, which was given as security by the complainant at the time of availing housing loan was misplaced by the bank and the bank had made its sincere and rigorous efforts in tracing the document, but the same could not be traced in spite of their best efforts and there is a bonafide mistake on their part, the opposite parties expressed their helplessness in the matter. The complainant already sold the flat to third party and also filed Sale Deed to prove the said fact and due to misplacement of the original title deed, he sustained heavy loss. It is their bounden duty, to return the documents after discharging of the loan. Till now the original documents were not returned to the complainant. If they returned the said documents to the complainant, he would have made some transactions for his benefit. But, they failed to do so. The complainant was subjected to mental agony all these years and hence forced him to knock the doors of the this Commission.
10. It may be stated here that in a similar case titled as C.L. Khanna Vs Dena Bank, Original Petition No.70 of 2002, decided on 02.09.2005, the complainant i.e. C. L. Khanna, had filed a complaint before the Hon'ble National Commission, against the Opposite Party i.e. Dena Bank, with a prayer to direct it to return the title deeds of the gifted property, which were pledged with it, as a simple mortgage, deposited on 21st January, 1973, but were not returned by it (Bank) on the ground that the same were lost. In that case, the complainant had also sought compensation and settlement of his loan account. In the said case also, the Opposite Party i.e. Dena Bank, took one of the similar objections that the complaint was not maintainable; and that the complainant could not seek compensation for deficiency in rendering service. The Hon'ble National Commission, while setting aside all the objections raised by the Bank, referred to above, allowed the complaint and granted compensation, to the tune of Rs.1 lac, besides costs of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant, holding the Bank deficient in rendering service. Apart from this, Bank was directed for not charging interest on the loan amount and to publish an advertisement in the newspaper. The principle of law laid in C.L. Khanna's case (supra), is fully applicable to the instant case. It is, therefore, held that the consumer complaint was maintainable before Commission. The submission of the Counsel for the opposite parties, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
11. The title deed of the property is an important and vital document. If the complainants wish to dispose of the property, the prospective buyer is likely to entertain apprehension about the title of the property. Misplacement of title documents is certainly a deficiency and negligence attributable to the opposite parties. All these acts of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service. Hence the point no.1 is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties.
12 After considering all the foregoing facts and circumstances and also having regard to the contentions raised on behalf of the complainant and opposite parties, this Commission is of the view that the complainant is entitled to return of original title deed or the duplicate title deed with a stamp paper purchased in the name of the Bank along with Indemnity Bond undertaking to indemnify the complainant for any loss or damage if he suffers due to the misuse of the lost document and the Bank is liable to also furnish FIR copy of the concerned police station and also liable to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards monetary loss for non-return of documents for all these years and also liable to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards costs.
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part and the opposite parties are directed to return the original title deed with reference to the complainant's Flat or to obtain duplicate of the same with a stamp paper purchased in the name of the Bank at the cost of the opposite parties along with Indemnity Bond undertaking to indemnify the complainant for any loss or damage if he suffers due to the misuse of the lost document and also furnish FIR copy of the concerned police station and hand over the same to the complainant, to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards monetary loss for non-return of documents for all these years and to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards costs, within four weeks, failing which, the entire amount shall carry interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of the order till the date of realization.
PRESIDENT MEMBER 08.03.2018 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE WITNESSES EXAMINED NIL EXHIBITS MARKED For complainant Ex.A1 Copy of letter dated 27.12.2013 of complainant to Op no.1 Ex.A2 Copy of No Due Certificate dated 13.01.2014 Ex.A3 Copy of letter of Op no.1 Bank to complainant dated 15.01.2014 Ex.A4 Copy of letter dated 17.01.2014 of complainant to Op No.1 Ex.A5 Copy of Legal Notice dated 25.01.2015 Ex.A6 Copy of reply notice dated 11.02.2014 Ex.A7 Copy of legal notice dated 20.02.2014 Ex.A8 Copy of letter dated 06.03.2014 from Op No.1 Bank to complainant along with enclosures Ex.A9 Copy of legal notice dated 10.03.2014 Ex.A10 Copies of receipts dated 01.09.2013 Ex.A11 Copy of receipt dated 13.08.2013 Ex.A12 Copy of receipt dated 06.01.2014 Ex.A13 Copy of Sale Deed dated 12.06.2013 Ex.A14 Copy of letter of Ops dated 05.04.2014 along with enclosures Ex.A15 Copy of reply dated 25.04.2014 of the complainant Ex.A16 Copy of letter dated 14.05.2014 of the Ops Ex.A17 Copy of reply dated 24.05.2014 of complainant Ex.A18 Copy Proof of payment of interest by complainant Ex.A19 Copy of Sale Deed dated 18.11.2015 For opposite parties Ex.B1 Copy of letter dated 27.12.2013 complainant Ex.B2 Copy of letter dated 15.01.2014 of opposite party Ex.B3 Copy of letter dated 17.01.2014 of complainant Ex.B4 Copy of legal notice dated 25.01.2014 Ex.B5 Copy of reply dated 11.02.2014 Ex.B6 Copy of complaint given to SHO Amberpet dated 15.02.2014 Ex.B7 Copy of legal notice dated 20.02.2014 Ex.B8 Copy of letter dated 06.03.2014 of opposite party Ex.B9 Copy of legal notice dated 10.03.2014 Ex.B10 Copy of sale deed dated 23.06.2006 Ex.B11 Copy of paper publication in Hindu Daily dated 17.02.2014 Ex.B12 Copy of Paper Publication in Andhra Bhoomi dated 16.02.2014 Ex.B13 Copy of affidavit given by the Opposite party dated 18.02.2014 Ex.B14 Copy of Certificate issued by the police dept., dated 10.05.2014 Ex.B15 Copy of Encumbrance certificates dated 20.02.2014 PRESIDENT MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. N. RAO NALLA] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. Sri. PATIL VITHAL RAO] JUDICIAL MEMBER