State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
R.Ramasamy,Karur Dist. vs The Branch Manager,Branch Office ... on 23 March, 2022
1
IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH OF THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADURAI.
Present: THIRU.N. RAJASEKAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
F.A.No.61/2015
(Against the order made in C.C.No.19/2014 dated 28.05.2015 on the file of
the District Forum, Karur.)
WEDNESDAY, THE 23rd DAY OF MARCH 2022
R.Ramasamy,
S/o Raju Naidu,
3, Gandhi Nagar 1st Cross,
Karur Town, Karur Taluk,
Karur District. Appellant/Complainant
-Vs-
1. Shriram Chits Tamilnadu Private Limited,
Branch Office Karur,
Rep.by its Branch Manager,
No.189, 190 KPM Textiles Upstairs,
Jawahar Bazaar Karur. 1st Respondent/1st Opposite Party
2. The Regional Manager,
Shriram Chits Tamilnadu Private Limited,
C-114, Cherry Road,
Salem - 7. 2nd Respondent/2nd Opposite Party
3. Shriram Chits Tamilnadu Private Limited,
Registered Office Chennai,
Rep.its Managing Director,
No.149, Greams Dugar, Greams Road,
Chennai - 6. 3rd Respondent/3rd Opposite Party
And also at,
SIRE MANSION, II Floor,
Model School Road,
621, Anna Salai,
Chennai-6.
Counsel for Appellant/Complainant : Mr.S.Madhavan, Advocate.
Counsel for Respondents-1 to 3/Opp.Parties-1 to 3 : Mr.V.Sitharanjandas, Advocate.
2
This appeal coming before me for final hearing on 18.10.2021 and on
perusing the material records, this Commission made the following:-
ORDER
THIRU.N. RAJASEKAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant under section 15 read with section 17(1) (a) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order of the learned District Forum, Karur made in C.C.No.19/2014, dated 28.05.2015, dismissing the complaint.
2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties are referred to here as they stood arrayed in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redresssal Forum, Karur.
3. The complainant suffering by an order, dismissal of the complaint in the hands of the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karur (hereinafter in short "District Forum") have preferred this appeal before this Commission.
4. The case of the complaint is as follows:- The complainant is one of the subscribers of a Chit conducted by the 1st opposite party for Rs.5,00,000/-. The period of chit is 40 months and also payable per month is Rs.12,500/- less kasar. The complainant is the successful bidder in the chit in the open auction held in the office of the 1st opposite party on 11.06.2004 for Rs.3,00,000/-. At the time of paying the chit amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant the 1st opposite party had demanded to give security and accordingly the complainant has handed over the original Sale Deed dated 02.02.1998 executed by Venkatammal and others in favour of the complainant (Document No.265/1998 of SRO, Karur West) to the 1st opposite party and the complainant had receiving chit amount from the 1st opposite 3 party. Subsequently the complainant has paid 35 installments regularly and now there is a balance of Rs.62,074/- due payable by the complainant to the opposite party. The complainant approached the 1st opposite party for return of the original Sale Deed for which the 1st opposite party replied that if the entire balance chit amount is paid, then only will be returned as per the procedure of the company. Accordingly, on 10.02.2007, the complainant approached the 1st opposite party and informed that he is ready to pay the balance chit amount and requested to return the original sale deed which was handed over to the 1st opposite party at the time of receiving the chit amount towards security. But the 1st opposite party informed to the complainant that the original sale dated 02.02.1998 is not available with the 1st opposite party and it is misplaced and assured to the complainant to trace out the sale deed and inform to the complainant. On 25.08.2011 the complainant has given a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Karur and in the enquiry the staff of the 1st opposite party promised to trace the original sale deed and return it to the complainant. But the 1st opposite party has not followed the advice of the police authorities. The complainant has issued notice to the opposite parties on 05.10.2013 through counsel and the opposite parties received acknowledged the same. So far, the opposite parties have not informed to the complainant as to the availability of the original sale deed. The original sale deed is very much necessary for the purpose of dealing with the property in future and without the original sale deed, the complainant could not establish his title to the property. The complainant could not sell the property without the original sale deed and the market value of the property will be diminished in the absence of the original sale deed. The acts of the opposite parties in handling the original sale deed with their custody in their premises clearly 4 amounts to deficiency in service. Therefore, directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and stress caused by the acts of the opposite parties to the complainant and to pay cost of the proceedings.
5. Written version filed by the 1st opposite party and adopted by 2nd and 3rd opposite party are as follows:- The address of 2nd and 3rd opposite parties and designation mistakenly mentioned no original manager post is existing at Salem and the address of third opposite party in Chennai is also defective. It is true the complainant regularly paid in the 35 installments and Rs.62,704/- is the balance amount to be payment with the complainant. The complainant has not co-operated with the first opposite party as per the advice of police officials during their enquiry for making publication in newspapers. The allegation that non availability of title deed will reduce the value of the property is false. The complaint is barred by limitation. The original documents misplaced during the shifting of the office. The complainant filed the complaint after receiving the reply by the opposite party informing that they are ready to take steps for the supply of certified copy of the missing documents. Therefore, the complaint should be dismissed
6. The Learned District Forum, after taking into account of the evidences adduced by both parties, dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complainant is a defaulter in payment not paid the entire amount he is not entitled to get any relief under Consumer Protection Act.
7. Being aggrieved against that order the complainant challenged it by filing this appeal stating that the Lower court failed to understand that the moment the security is lost, rescinding the terms between parties, the enforcement of the 5 contract shall not arise and the party who is unable to perform should compensate the sufferer. The Lower court failed to see that until the complaint was made to suffer mental agony, loss of peace in mind, when he cause to realize that the original document is lost. The Lower court has not considered the documents and evidence filed on the side of the complainant and has not answered the same when the Court is bound to. Therefore the appeal may be allowed and to set aside the District Forum order.
8. No additional evidences were adduced by both parties in this appeal before this Commission.
9. The Points for consideration are:
(1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties by misplacing the title deed belongs to the complainant?
(2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation?
10. Point No.1&2: It is the admitted case of both parties that the complainant joined and subscribed in a chit conduct by the opposite parties for Rs.5,00,000/- with a period of 40 months and the amount per month Rs.12,500/- less deductions. During the course of open auction on 11.06.2004, the complainant was the successful bidder for Rs.3,00,000/- while getting the chit amount. The 1st opposite party demanded security and hence the original sale deed in Doc.No.265/1998-SRO Karur-West, executed by Venkatammal in favour of the complainant was given as security on 12.07.2004 the complainant receiving the cheque amount of Rs.2,98,000/- after deduction of Rs.2000/- as a documentation charges. After repayment of 35 installments when the complainant demanded the return of documents the opposite parties insisting the complainant to deposit the balance 6 amount of Rs.62,074/-. Both parties exchanged the letters and notices which are marked as documents before the District Forum. Now, the opposite parties themselves admits the documents produced as a security by the complainant was misplaced in their office they could not trace out the documents and they are ready to furnish the certified copies of the document for getting the certified copy the complainant not co-operated with the opposite parties.
11. The learned District Forum without considering the evidences produced by both parties in a prospective manner and passed an erroneous order dismissing the complaint on the ground that the complainant cannot claim the title deed without payment of entire amount and there is no cause of action. The opposite parties themselves admits the title deed received by them from the complainant as a security for the chit amount was misplaced in their office. When the opposite party failed to discharge their obligation towards their customer and have failed to return the original documents which were entrusted to them amounts to deficiency in service by relying upon the citations the order passed by the (1) State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission - in the case of Deepak Mandal and Another -Vs- IDBI Bank and Another (2) The judgement of Hon‟ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission- in the case of - Rajesh Gupta -Vs- M/s Axis Bank Limited. Therefore, the findings in the above citations is squarely applicable to the present appeal it was observed in the appeal as follows:- "The facts of the case clearly establish that the opposite party has failed to discharge their obligation towards their customer and have failed to return all the documents, which were entrusted. Had that been so, meaning thereby that if those documents which they have lost were of no consequence and no value, there was no occasion for the opposite party to ask 7 the complainant to deposit these documents for sanction of the loan and for its continuance. Apparently, the documents have the value".
12. It was also held by the Commission in a earlier order in the case of - C.L. Khanna -Vs- Dena Bank IV (2005) CPJ National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission - "it is clear, therefore, that the bank is liable to pay the compensation to the complainant, because the value of the property is bound to be affected, if the original title deeds had been lost".
13. The counsel for the appellant/complainant raised another contention that there is a fine distinction between the word „misplaced‟ and „lost‟. The word „misplaced‟ conveys the meaning that the document is still in possession of the bank but has been wrongly placed and may be recovered later. However, the word „lost‟ conveys the meaning that the documents are no longer in possession of the bank. The limitation period for the consumer to approach the courts would commence from the date the bank has acknowledged that the documents had been lost. However, in cases of acknowledgement by the bank that the documents have been misplaced, the cause of action continues with the customer to approach the court. Therefore, the complaint is not barred by limitation it is a continuing cause of action.
14. It is the admitted case of opposite parties that the documents were misplaced the opposite parties is responsible for the misplaced original documents. If the documents are said to be misplaced it means the documents are still in possession of the bank but has been wrongly placed and may be recovered later. The opposite parties also informed the fact of misplacing documents in their communications and informing their willingness to get certified copies of the documents. Even though they are ready to get certified copies they are responsible for the returning of 8 missing original title deed will definitely diminish the value of the property whenever the title holder approached for any loan or sale of the property. When the opposite parties are misplacing the documents not able to tracing out for a prolonged period it amounts to deficiency in service on their part.
15. The complainant claimed Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony in his complaint the complainant failed to produce any xerox copy of the document to found the real value of the property involved in the title deeds. The complainant‟s counsel produced the citation in the case of - Deepak Mandal and Another -Vs- IDBI Bank in which the value of the property was 2.5 crore in the above case the complainant claims Rs.50,00,000/- loss of the value of the property. The said Commission awarded only for Rs.10,0,000/- it was discussed in the above citation. It is true the opposite parties are responsible for the misplacing original documents while quantifying damages, consumer Forums are required make an attempt to serve ends of justice so that compensation is awarded in an established case, which not only serves the purpose of recompensing the individual, but which also at the same time, aims to bring about a qualitative change in the attitude of the service provider. Indeed, calculation of damages depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be laid down for universal application. While awarding compensation, a Consumer Forum has take into account all relevant factors and assess compensation on the basis of accepted legal principles, on moderation. It is for the Consumer Forum to grant compensation to the extent it finds it reasonable, fair and proper in the facts and circumstances of a given case according to establish judicial standards where the claimant is able to establish his 9 charge. (It is held by the Supreme Court of India - in the case of Charan Singh -Vs- Healing touch Hospital and Others 2000 SAR (Civil) 935)
16. The appellant/complainant here nowhere stated the value of the property involved in missing title deeds. In the absence of the valuation of the property we could not assess the value of the compensation. At the same time it was held in the above discussions the opposite parties is liable to pay compensation for missing the original documents. The opposite parties sanctioned the chit amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant after receiving the missing document as a security. Therefore, the value of the property involved in the title deed may be below the amount and therefore fixing of the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation will meets the ends of justice at the same time the opposite parties are ordered to be making arrangement for lodging a complaint before the concerned jurisdictional Police Station about the missing document, and making arrangement for public notice in prominent news newspapers and also applied for a certified copy of the document from the Sub Registrar. After taking the above steps the opposite parties to hand over the certified copies of documents along with the proof of lodging complaint and making publication to the complainant the complainant is also directing to pay the balance amount to the opposite party on the date of receiving the above documents from them. Therefore, the opposite parties is committed deficiency in service and the complainant is eligible for getting compensation as fixed the above arrangements and answered accordingly for the point for consideration no.1 and 2.
10
17. In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Karur made in C.C.No.19/2014, dated 28.05.2015 and the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant and,
(a) the opposite parties are ordered to making arrangement for lodging a complaint before the concerned jurisdictional Police Station about the missing document and
(b) making arrangement for public notice in prominent news newspapers and also applied for a certified copy of the document from the Sub Registrar within the stipulated period and also, the complainant is directed to pay the balance amount to the opposite parties on the date of receiving the above documents.
(c) The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards cost to the complainant.
Time for compliance: Two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Dictated to the Steno-typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 23rd day of March 2022.
Sd/-xxxxxxxxxx N. RAJASEKAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
11