National Consumer Disputes Redressal
State Bank Of India vs Amitesh Mazumder on 3 January, 2020
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2732 OF 2019 (Against the Order dated 23/10/2019 in Appeal No. 22/2018 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER, SBI TOLLYGUNGE BRANCH, 63, NSC BOSE ROAD, KOLKATA-700040 WEST BENGAL ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. AMITESH MAZUMDER PROPRIETOR M/S. A.M. ENTERPRISE, 80/1, SAHID BINOY PALLY, P.O. BANSDRONI P.S. REGENT PARK, KOLKATA-700070 WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sidharth Sangal, Advocate
Mr. Ritesh Khare, Advocate For the Respondent :
Dated : 03 Jan 2020 ORDER
JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)
The complainant/respondent took a loan from the petitioner bank for his business purpose. In order to secure the loan, he deposited the Title Deeds of an immovable property with the petitioner bank. After settling the loan by paying a sum of Rs.13,50,000/- to the petitioner bank, he sought return of the Title Deeds, which he had deposited with the petitioner bank. The Title Deeds having not been returned to him, he approached the concerned District Forum by way of a Consumer Complaint seeking compensation etc.
2. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner bank which admitted that the loan had been paid as per the settlement between the parties. It was also admitted that the Title Deeds had been deposited with the Petitioner Bank but were not traceable with the Bank.
3. The District Forum ruled in favour of the complainant and directed as under:
That the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation in terms of Section 14(1)(d) of the Act and Rs.30,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order;
That the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally directed to publish the fact of loss of the Original Title Deed with full description in three leading daily newspapers, one in Bengali, the other in English and the last in Hindi as well as to lodge F.I.R. in the concerned Police Station to safeguard the fraudulent use of the Original Title Deed, at their own cost, within 30 days from the date of this order;
It is, however, made clear that the higher authorities of the OP shall have the liberty to fix responsibility of the officers/employees entrusted with the charge of safe custody of the Original Title Deed and shall be entitled to recover the amount which it is ordered to pay as compensation and litigation cost to the complainant, from such officers/employees held responsible for the loss of the Original Title Deed;
4. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner bank approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed, the petitioner bank is before this Commission by way of this Revision Petition.
5. Three submissions have been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. His first submission is that the bank is ready to provide the certified copy of the Title Deeds to the complainant. His second submission is that the bank will issue a Certificate to the complainant admitting the deposit of Title Deeds with the bank and its inability to return the same to the complainant. His third submission is that the petitioner bank shall bear the cost of issuing a public notice in the newspapers with respect to the loss of the Title Deed. This is also the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner bank that the revenue record in respect of the immovable property in question is available with the complainant and can be used by him to establish his title.
6. In my opinion, even if all the steps suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner are taken by the petitioner bank, that would not result in the complainant realizing the true market value of the immovable property in question, if he decides to sell the same in the market. No one in the market will agree to purchase an immovable property on payment of its prevailing market value, if he knows that the original Title Deed of the property will not be delivered to him by the seller. There will always be an apprehension of the misuse of the Title Deeds of the immovable property by an unscrupulous person, by depositing the same with a bonafide lender, since an Equitable Mortgage can be created by deposit of the Title Deeds. The erosion in the value of the property if it is to be sold without the Title Deeds, would be substantial and in fact even the compensation awarded by the District Forum and maintained by the State Commission may not be sufficient to make up such erosion in the market value of the property. Moreover, if the complainant decides to take a loan by deposit of the Title Deeds of the property against the property, he will not be able to get a ready lender in the market unless the Title Deeds of the property are deposited. In fact, even a bank may be unwilling to give a loan against an immovable property unless the Title Deeds of the property are deposited with it. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the fora below was eminently justified on account of the petitioner bank having lost the Title Deeds of the immovable property of the complainant. The view taken by the fora below does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The Revision Petition is therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.
......................J V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER