Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
A.P. Sahi, President
A.C. Dharmadevi and Ors. – Appellants
versus
Indian Bank and Ors. – Respondents
First Appeal Nos.871 and 906 of 2015
Decided on 2.1.2024
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 19 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 51] – Services – Banking – Return of Original Documents – Loss of Original Documents – Deficiency Attributable Title deeds were lost and therefore, in the opinion of this Commission, there was a clear deficiency in the services of the bank in not handing back the original title deeds that were lost by it while the documents were in its custody -The legal title of the complainant does stand compromised on account of the loss of the original documents by opposite party 1. Seeking compensation on the ground of deficiency in service is, therefore, a legitimate claim. The claim of compensation from opposite party 1 is also legitimate since the papers were in his custody under the terms of the loan provided by opposite party 1/bank. The contention that the order of the Ombudsman does not prevent his filing of the complaint is also valid since the order itself provides him liberty to do so In view of the fact that the safe custody of the original title documents to the property were the liability of opposite party 1 and that opposite party 2’s liabilities are limited in view of clauses 1 and 7 of the agreement between the opposite parties, the complaint squarely lies against opposite party 1. The liability of the opposite party 1 is manifest in the loss of the documents. It cannot seek to shift the liability to its agent, the opposite party 2. The deficiency in service has also been held as established by the Banking Ombudsman – This is a hard case where the loss of title deeds and its acceptance by the bank remains undisputed. The appellant, therefore, could have claimed compensation and also a declaration from the appropriate court with regard to the status of the title of the property for future transactions in the absence of original deeds The Bank shall also issue a certificate that the loss of the title deeds will not discredit the reputation of the status of title of the complainant in respect of the mortgaged property or act to their disadvantage in respect of any transaction whatsoever – Appeal partly allowed. [Paras 6 to 28].
Result: Appeal partly allowed.
ORDER
These two first appeals arise out of a common order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission) dated 23.07.2015, where the complainant, Smt. A.C. Dharmadevi in complaint no. 3 of 2008, alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Indian Bank, Chennai for not returning the original documents/ title deeds deposited with them that was transferred to the Esplanade Branch of the Bank, and were ultimately lost in their custody. The complainant’s late father, who was the Managing Partner of M/s. Swasthik Tobacco Factory, Vedaranyam had availed loan facilities from the Indian Bank since the year 1966. In order to secure the loan which was advanced on 24.06.1966, 12 documents/title deeds were deposited on 19.12.1967.
2. The loan facilities were desired to be continued and for that the complainant approached the Bank for extending the security and also to inspect the original documents. The said documents/ deeds were kept in a box in the strong room of the Bank. On 28.11.1988, the complainant along with her son-in-law and the Manger of the Bank of the Vedaranyam branch visited the Indian Bank, Esplanade, Chennai to find out about the missing documents but the same could not be traced.
3. The said fact was also brought to the notice of the vigilance cell of the Indian Bank at Chennai on 20.12.1988 and the Chief Vigilance Officer intimated her that attempts were being made to trace out the said documents. The complainant was also informed that the said matter had been taken up with the zonal inspectorate and further information would be furnished after further investigation.
4. A communication on 30.08.1989 was tendered, whereafter a reminder was sent on 26.07.1990, whereafter the complainant was informed that the Zonal Manager, Tiruchy has been instructed to sort out the matter.
5. Since the business run by the complainant was dependent on the finances as also the loan transactions that were subsisting with the Bank, the complainant agreed to a proposal of the Bank to obtain certified copies of the said documents/title deeds, which were lost and substitute the same for creating an equitable mortgage. On acceptance of this proposal, the loss of the original documents was published in the newspapers. The business of the complainant with the Bank continued but the original title deeds were neither recovered by the Bank, which had been lost in its custody nor were they returned to the complainant.
6. After 1991 there seems to be a gap in the pursuit of this attempt to search out and find the documents, and on 05.12.1998, the complainant again sent a letter to the Regional Manager, Kumbakonam Branch of the Indian Bank about the delay in the tracing of the original documents, followed by a reminder on 29.05.1999. Personal letters were also sent and then a reply dispatched by the Zonal Manager, Pondicherry was received informing that the complaint was receiving their attention. On a reminder, reply was received from the Bank on 27.09.2000, that since the original documents were not traceable, the certified copies as tendered were entertained and an equitable mortgage had been created at the Esplanade Branch. The complainant pursued her representation and renewed her request directly to the Chairman and the Managing Director of the Indian Bank, Head Office, Chennai on 02.05.2001, followed by a representation dated 06.12.2002.
7. There is again another gap of almost 5 years, when the complainant moved an application under the Right to Information Act on 16.08.2007, to which a reply was sent that the loan account had been closed and the certified copies of the title deeds would be returned to the complainant along with a certificate of no dues. Thus their appears to be a gap of five years between the communications made by the complainant.
8. The complaint before the State Commission was filed in the year 2008 alleging serious deficiency in service on the part of the respond
Legal Title - The legal title of the complainant does stand compromised on account of the loss of the original documents by opposite party 1.
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.
Original property documents are very valuable and essential documents for owner of a property and its non-availability with him brings many adverse impacts/consequences.
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 ....
A corporate entity may qualify as a consumer, but the commercial purpose test depends on the dominant intention of the transaction. Furthermore, summary proceedings under consumer law are inappropria....
A body corporate cannot be considered a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act if their banking services availed were for commercial purposes.
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
