Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member and Subhash Chandra, Member
State Bank of India – Petitioner
versus
Jatinder Pal Singh – Respondent
Revision Petition No.1177 of 2014
(Against the Order dated 24/10/2013 in Appeal No. 1076/2013 of the State Commission Punjab)
Decided on 3.1.2023
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.21(1)(b)[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.58(1)(b)] -Revision – Services – banking – Misplacement of Title Deed / loss of sale deed – if amounts to deficiency of Service - Non-availability of its original title documents unarguably puts a property under suspicion in the eyes of the general public or prospective buyers and decisively impacts its value detrimentally. The consequences continue in perpetuity, they continue even after the property has devolved to the heirs i.e. the value-extenuating consequences sustain indefinitely. The adverse consequences of non-availability of the original title documents do not appear to have been realistically appreciated in the right pragmatic perspective by the State Commission – Thus, there is no doubt that the Petitioner Bank was responsible for the loss of the Sale Deed. The Petitioner being entrusted with the document relating to the Property of the Respondent was required to preserve the same – Therefore, Petitioner is clearly deficient in its services by not taking reasonable steps to preserve the valuable original document of its customer causing serious prejudice – Petition dismissed. [Paras 9 to 11].
Result: Petition dismissed.
ORDER
The present Revision Petition, under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) has been filed by the Petitioner against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No.1076/2013 dated 24.10.2013.
2. Briefly put, facts of the case are that the Complainant/Petitioner, proprietor of M/s Sherry Knitwears was sanctioned advance Credit Limit of Rs.2,00,000/- by the Petitioner/Opposite Party Bank at Link Road Branch, Ludhiana, vide CC A/c No. 1014712823, against security by way of equitable mortgage on the property of the Respondent, namely land measuring 100 Sq. Yds. situated at Khasra No. 2258/1837/858, Khata No. 2237/2679 situated at Guru Nanak Pura, Civil Lines, Ludhiana. Opposite Party also took the original sale deed of the said property from the Complainant. The Complainant requested for return of his above said original sale deed, after clearing all the dues to the Opposite Party, to which the Opposite Party replied that the same is not traceable and they will return the same within few days. Despite repeated visits made by the Complainant, the Opposite Party delayed the matter on one pretext or the other. The Complainant later came to know that the original sale deed of the property of the Complainant had been lost by the Opposite Party. The Complainant also sent applications regarding tracing of sale deed and to return the same, but the Opposite Party failed to do so, due to which the Complainant is unable to sell his property. Aggrieved by the deficiency in service, the Complainant filed the Consumer Complaint before the District Commission with following prayer:—
“It is, therefore, prayed that kindly instruct the Opposite party to return the original sale deed of the complainant alongwith compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the financial as well as mental harassment which the complainant has to face due to irresponsible attitude of the O.P.’s and also the cost of litigation alongwith cost of counsel.”
3. The Complaint was contested by the Opposite Party/Petitioner by filing Written Statement. The Bank took preliminary objection that the present Complaint is barred by Limitation. The account of the Complainant was settled in the year November, 2009. The last payment was made by the Complainant in the month of March, 2010. Thus, limitation to file the present Complainant expired on 31.03.2012 and as such, the Complaint was liable to be dismissed. The Opposite Party, further, stated that the Complaint was not maintainable against the answering Opposite Party as there was no deficiency in service on their part. The Complainant availed a loan facility as Cash Credit Limit under the name and style of M/s Sherry Knitwear from the Opposite Party in the year 1977. Later on, the account became irregular and Opposite Party filed a recovery suit against the Complainant in a competent Court at Ludhiana. The Parties settled the above loan account under OTS (One Time settlement) scheme of the Opposite Party in 2009. Further, it was submitted that as per the Bank’s Policy, the NPA account was transferred to SARC (now called as SARB), Civil Lines, Ludhiana. The account was settled by SARC through the concerned authority. During the shifting of the file from one department to another i.e. from Opposite Party Bank branch to SARC, the sale deed of the property mortgaged with the bank was misplaced. The Opposite Party tried hard to trace the documents in question but despite the best efforts the same was not traceable. This fact was brought to the knowledge of the Complainant. The Opposite Party tried to obtain certified copy of title deed, but the SubRegistrar (East), Ludhiana returned the same with the report that the captioned record was damaged due to rain water. The Opposite Party Bank was trying to trace the same, but could not lay its hands on it as yet. When the same is traced they shall return the same to
Loss of Sale Deed - There is no doubt that the Petitioner Bank was responsible for the loss of the Sale Deed. The Petitioner being entrusted with the document relating to the Property of the Responde....
Home Loan – Reduction in sale consideration, though indicative of financial prejudice, cannot be wholly attributed to loss of Title Documents or quantified solely on the basis of sale documents.
Consumer Dispute – By no stretch of imagination, the receipt of amount more than Rs.20,000/- without cheque is not relevant issue for adjudication of the consumer disputes between the respondent and ....
Legal Title - The legal title of the complainant does stand compromised on account of the loss of the original documents by opposite party 1.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
