Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(CONSUMER) 21
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KANCHIPURAM DISTRICT @ CHENGALPATTU
U. Kasipandian, President, M. Jawahar, Member-I
Somasekhar Gangarapu – Appellant
Versus
State Bank of India – Respondent
CC.No.03 / 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: I. Senthamil Selvan
For the Respondents: I. Arun Kumar
Banks are liable for deficiency in service if they lose original title documents deposited as security and must compensate borrowers for delays and losses in accordance with RBI guidelines.
Headnote:The complainants filed a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, against a banking institution for the loss of original title deeds deposited as security for a home loan. Despite full repayment of the loan, the bank admitted to misplacing the documents, leading to financial loss and mental agony for the borrowers. The court found the bank's failure to return the documents as a gross deficiency in service. The primary issue was whether the loss of original property documents by a bank constitutes a deficiency in service and the extent of compensation payable. The court relied on the RBI Circular dated 13.09.2023, which mandates the release of original property documents within 30 days of loan settlement and prescribes a penalty of ₹5,000 per day for delays attributable to the regulated entity. In the result, this complaint is partly allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. complainants sought return of title deeds after loan repayment, but bank admitted loss. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. bank claimed remedial steps were taken and original documents aren't mandatory for registration. (Para 3) |
| 3. bank's admission of loss establishes deficiency in service. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. rbi mandates return of documents within 30 days and compensation for loss/delay. (Para 7) |
| 5. bank's failure to follow rbi guidelines and arrogant attitude warrants compensation. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 6. order for return of documents or payment of market value plus penalties. (Para 10) |
##PAGE1##
1
Date of Filing : 24.12.2025
Taken on file : 05.01.2026
Date of Disposal : 03.06.2026
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
KANCHIPURAM DISTRICT @ CHENGALPATTU
PRESENT: THIRU. U.KASIPANDIAN, B.A., M.L., .…. PRESIDENT
THIRU.M.JAWAHAR, B.A. L.L.M., ….. MEMBER-I
CC.No.03 / 2026
rd
THIS WEDNESDAY THE 3 DAY OF JUNE 2026
1. Mr. Somasekhar Gangarapu,
S/o.Mr. Haribabu Gangarapu,
2. Mrs. Sai Sireesha Nidiginti,
W/o. Mr. Somasekhar Gangarapu,
Both are residing at
Flat No.A107, Ecolife EON AKASH,
Off Varthur Panathur Main Road,
Balagere, Varthur,
Bangalore - 560 087. :: Complainant(s).
//Vs.//
State Bank of India,
Represented by its Assistant General Manager,
Retail Assets Central Processing Centre,
No. 50, A R Plaza, Mount Poonamallee High Road,
Ayyapanthangal, Chennai – 600 056. :: Opposite party(s).
Counsel for the complainant (s) : M/s.I.Senthamil Selvan, Advocates.
Counsel for opposite party(s) : M/s.I.Arun Kumar, Advocates.
Service Completion : 05.02.2026
This complaint having came up for final hearing before us on 12.05.2026, in the
presence of M/s.I.Senthamil Selvan, Advocates for the complainant, M/s.I.Arun Kumar,
Advocates for the opposite party, and this Commission delivered the following:
##PAGE2##2
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY THIRU. U.KASIPANDIAN, PRESIDENT.
1. This complaint is filed by the complainant under Sec.35 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 2019, against the opposite party seeking direction, directing the opposite
party to trace and return the original title documents deposited under Loan
No.32615265340; to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- towards mental agony, emotional
trauma and financial insecurity and gross negligence of the opposite party; & to pay a
sum of Rs.20,00,000/- being litigation costs.
2. Brief averments in the complaint is as follows:-
The Complainants submits that they are consumers within the meaning of
Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, having availed banking services of
the Opposite Party for consideration. The Complainants submits that the Opposite Party
is engaged in the business of banking and is therefore a "service provider" liable for
providing efficient and lawful services to consumers. The Complainants submits that
they availed a home loan of Rs.46,35,000/- from the Opposite Party vide Loan Account
No. 32615265340 in the year 2012 for the purchase of a residential flat detailed viz.,
Residential Flat No. 8026, Block 8, Floor 2, Door 6, Karambakkam Village, Ambattur
Taluk, Tiruvallur District (previously Saidapet Taluk), comprised in Survey Nos. 148/5A,
148/7A, 137/1 and 138/1. The Complainants submits that as a part of the loan
documentation process, they deposited original title deeds and documents with the
Opposite Party, including Registered Sale Deed (Document No. 9380/2012 dated
19.12.2012), Unregistered Construction Agreement dated 17.07.2012, Memorandum of
Deposit of Title Deeds (Doc. No. 5747/2013). The Complainants submits that they have
fully repaid the loan on 16.04.2024 and are entitled to the return their original
documents However, to their utter shock, the complainants were informed that the
##PAGE3##3
documents had been lost/misplaced by the Opposite Party. The Complainants submits
that in view of the continued inaction by the Opposite Party, they also filed a complaint
before the Reserve Bank of India Ombudsman under Complaint
No.N202425002017327 on 17.11.2024, seeking redressal for the misplacement of
original title documents. Howeve
