Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 1215
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Smt. Meena Ram Ananthan, CJ, Sri. V.V.Seshubabu, J
IDBI Bank Limited, Kachiguda Branch – Appellant
Versus
Sri Routhu Narsing Rao – Respondent
F.A.No. 474 OF 2021 | C.C.173/2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M/s.K.P.Saradhi
For the Respondents: Sri V. Gourisankar Rao
Negligence may still be inferred, despite claims of an act of God, if proper custodial measures are not demonstrated.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Section 41 - Appeal against order directing a bank to return damaged original documents and compensate the complainant - Opposite Party claimed lack of negligence due to fire accident causing document destruction - Court held that the possibility of negligence would still exist. (Paras 1, 13)
(B) Deficiency of Service - The bank’s failure to return original documents after loan closure, despite maintenance of them in their own custody, constituted deficiency in service. (Paras 12, 13)
Facts of the case:
Appellant bank failed to return original documents post loan closure, claiming they were destroyed in fire while stored at a centralized service provider. (Para 3)
Findings of Court:
The appeal is dismissed, confirming the lower court’s order for compensation and document return. (Paras 13, 14)
Issues: The main issues included determination of service deficiency by the bank and legality of the lower court's decision. (Para 9)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a fire could still indicate negligence, and the bank did not provide sufficient evidence alleviating its responsibility. (Para 13)
Result: Appeal dismissed with directions to return damaged documents and maintain compensation provision. (Para 14)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal filed under the consumer protection act. (Para 1) |
| 2. complaint details including original documents used as mortgage. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. arguments regarding bank negligence or lack thereof. (Para 6 , 8 , 12) |
| 4. court observations emphasize potential negligence amid the fire incident. (Para 10 , 11 , 13) |
| 5. final decision on appeal and directives for compliance. (Para 14) |
Order : PER HON’BLE SRI. V.V.SESHUBABU, MEMBER – JUDICIAL
1. The appeal is filed U/s 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the Opposite Party, aggrieved by the order of District Consumer Commission-I, Hyderabad, dated 06.01.2024 in CC 173/2020, where under the opposite party was directed to (i) return the partially damaged original documents available with them; (ii) pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the loss/damage caused to the complainant; (iii) Publish in any widely circulated newspaper in the region where the properties are located specifying the properties and stating that the “original title deeds have been damaged while in their custody” and (iv) pay costs of Rs.15,000/- litigation charges. Time for compliance is 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.
2. The brief averments of the complaint are that the complainant has obtained an educational loan of Rs.20,00,000/- on 19.10.2015 for the higher studies of his son in the USA with the opposite party. As per the terms and conditions, the repayment term was 84 months when total term being 120 months (including moratorium period) and the moratorium period starts from 13.01.2016 to 30.11.2018 (including course period); that the EMI payable was Rs.46,770/-; that while sanctioning the loan, the opposite party has taken the equitable mortgage of house, bearing No.2-1-2/36, Plot No.36, Sy.No.14, situated at Venkataramana Colony, Nagole, Hyderabad and the value of the said property is Rs.30,00,000/-, which is in the name of the complainant’s wife i.e. Smt.Sujana Malika; that on 04.11.2015 has sanctioned another educational loan vide Account No. 0594675100005319 in the name of his son, for which the complainant is the co-applicant. At the time of sanctioning the loan, the complainant has submitted the required documents i.e. (a) Registered Sale deed Doc. bearing No.6952/2001 executed in favour of Complainant’s wife; (b) Registered Sale Deed doc. bearing No.7406/1994 executed in favour of Sri N.Yadagiri, S/o late Babaiah; (c) Property Tax Receipt; (d) Building permission plan with proceedings and (e) Latest EC, dated
02.09.2015.
3. That on 13.12.2019, the complainant pre-closed the educational loan by paying the last due amount of Rs.3,84,265/- vide the above said loan account of his son, however, debited Rs.958/- on 18.12.2019 showing balance as “NIL”, but the opposite party failed to return the referred security documents after pre-closure of the account and postponed to release the mortgaged documents, therefore, the complainant submitted a representation requesting them to release the said property documents and also to issue “No dues certificate” on the Educational Loan Account; that on 20.12.2019, they have given reply stating that they have forwarded the said documents to their Centralized office at Mumbai for the purpose of storage at their custodian i.e. Stock Holding Corporation of India Limited (SHCIL)
and they stated that due to the fire accident at SHCIL, all the 05 documents referred above were completely destroyed; that the opposite party informed the complainant that the partly damaged title deeds will be returned, if he wish to obtain the certified copies for which they assist him to obtain the said documents from the concerned Sub-Registrar of assurances.
4. That due to financial crisis, the complainant intended to dispose off the said property by pre-closing the Educational Loan account with the opposite party; that the present market value of the said property is Rs.1,00,00,000/-; that due to the lack of original title deeds, the complainant is not able to dispose
