National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Branch Manager, State Bank Of India vs Varanasi Bala Tripura Sundari on 3 November, 2017
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 2127 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 30/06/2017 in Complaint No. 36/2014 of the State Commission Telangana) 1. BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA DEFENCECOLONY BRANCH, NEREDMET X ROADS. SECUNDERABAD-500094 2. ASST. GENERAL MANAGER. STATE BANK OF INDIA. RETAIL ASSETS CENTRAL PROCEEDIG CENTRE (RACPC), ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT-1, MOULALI. HYDERABAD-500018 ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. VARANASI BALA TRIPURA SUNDARI REPRESENTED BY HER HUSBAND ND GPA, SRI. SISTA BHASKAR RAO. W/O. SISTA BHASKAR RAO. R/O. NO. 8-801, RAIBOW VISTAS, MOOSAPET. HYDERABAD-500018 ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Appellant : Mr. Buddy A. Ranganadhan, Advocate
Mr. A.V. Rangam, Advocate For the Respondent : VARANASI BALA TRIPURA SUNDARI
Dated : 03 Nov 2017 ORDER
JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER
The respondent / complainant stood as a guarantor for the education loan extended by the appellant to her son. She also mortgaged a residential flat No. A-408, Sakansh in Memnagar, Ahmedabad for the petitioner bank by depositing the original share certificates issued by the concerned Society as well as the original allotment letter issued to her. On payment of the education loan, the respondent / complainant sought return of the original documents deposited with the bank. The bank having failed to return the said documents, she approached the Banking Ombudsman who directed the petitioner bank to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the complainant and obtain and supply the duplicate copies of the documents at its own cost. Being dissatisfied, the complainant approached the concerned State Commission by way of a consumer complaint, seeking Rs.12,00,000/- towards her loss along with Rs.10,00,000/- as damages.
2. The complaint was resisted by the appellant bank, which admitted having lost / misplaced the original documents. The bank however, denied any loss to the complainant on account of its having lost / misplaced the original documents of the property of the complainant.
3. The State Commission vide its order dated 30.6.2017, directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the monetary loss suffered by her, along with Rs.40,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and Rs.10,000/- as the cost of litigation. The bank was also directed to return either the original documents or obtain their copies and provide the same to the complainant at its own cost. Being aggrieved, the bank is before this Commission by way of this Appeal.
4. It is not in dispute that the original title document of immovable property owned by the complainant were deposited with the appellant bank, for the purpose of guarantying the repayment of the education loan extended by the appellant bank to her son. It is also not in dispute that the original documents were not returned to the complainant / respondent, even after the education loan had been repaid. It is also not disputed that such original documents are still not traceable with the appellant bank. The original title documents of immovable property are valuable security as is evident from the fact that the bank itself extended loan to the son of the complainant on deposit of the said documents. An equitable mortgage of the said property was created in favour of the appellant bank by deposit of the aforesaid original title documents. The appellant bank therefore ought to have kept the said original documents in safe custody and returned them to the complainant as soon as the loan was repaid. The bank was clearly deficient in rendering services to the complainant by not keeping the aforesaid valuable security in safe custody and not returning the same to the complainant even on repayment of the loan.
5. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that there is no evidence of any loss to the complainant on account of the original title documents not being returned to her by the appellant bank. It is pointed out that the said property has already been sold by the appellant and there is no evidence of she having suffered a loss on account of selling property without original title documents. It is also pointed out that the name of the purchaser of the property was not disclosed to the State Commission nor was a copy of any sale deed filed.
6. In my view, the value of the original title document of an immovable property can never be disputed. Any person seeking to purchase an immovable property at its prevailing market price would certainly insist upon the delivery of the original documents to him so that there is no possibility of a misuse of the said documents. If the original documents fall into the hands of an unscrupulous person, he may misuse the same not only be creating an equitable mortgage depositing the said title documents but also by executing a fake sale deed of the property claiming to be the owner of the property, subject matter of the title documents. It is to avoid the possibility of such frauds and misuse that any prudent buyer would insist upon the receiving the original title documents while purchasing a property at its prevailing market price. If a person agrees to purchase an immovable property without receiving the original title documents, he is not likely to pay the full market price prevailing at that time. The person selling the immovable property, without delivering the original title documents to the purchasers is bound to get a lesser price from the purchaser. Therefore, the loss to the title holder on account of the original title documents having not been returned to him can hardly be disputed and in fact, the loss is bound to be substantial, considering the value of immovable properties in the country.
7. The case of the complainant / respondent is that though she has sold the property subject matter of the title documents, the purchaser had not paid a part of the sale consideration since he was insisting upon the delivery of the original documents. Though, neither the name of the purchaser was disclosed to the State Commission nor any sale deed of the property was filed, the record of the State Commission does not show any request having been made by the appellant bank for a direction to the complainant / respondent to disclose the particulars of the purchaser or to file a copy of the sale deed executed by her. The appellant did not even try to cross examine the complainant / respondent on this aspect so as to make an attempt to elicit the details of the purchaser and the sale alleged to have been made to him. In the absence of such an effort on the part of the appellant bank no adverse inference against the complainant / respondent can be drawn on account of not furnishing the particulars of the purchasers to the State Commission.
8. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I find no merit in the appeal which seems to be aimed at covering the negligence of the bank officials who have lost the original title documents of the complainant. The appeal is therefore, dismissed without any orders as to costs. However, it shall be open to the appellant bank to recover its loss from the employee (s) responsible for having lost / misplaced the original title documents which the complainant / respondent had deposited with the bank.
......................J V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER