STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/684/2023 null THE MANAGER IDBI BANK PRESENT ADDRESS - SEA QUEEN BUILDING EDAPALLY KOCHI ,KERALA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus DR S ANILKUMAR PRESENT ADDRESS - LAKSHMI NARAYANA VILAS HOUSE VADAVATHOOR P O KOTTAYAM

686010 ,KERALA. .......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR , PRESIDENT FOR THE APPELLANT:

THE MANAGER IDBI BANK, N Mohanakumar (Advocate)

FOR THE RESPONDENT:

DR S ANILKUMAR, In-Person DATED: INVALID DATETIME

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL Nos. 684/2023 and 103/2024 COMMON JUDGEMENT DATED : 20.03.2025 (Against the order in C.C.No.07/2022 on the files of DCDRC, Kottayam)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA : PRESIDENT KUMAR SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER APPEAL No.684/2023 APPELLANT:

The Branch Head, IDBI Bank, Sea Queen Building, Edappally, Kochi (by Adv. Kulathoor N. Mohanakumaran Nair)

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Dr. S. Anilkumar, S/o Late N. Somasekharan, ‘Lakshmi Narayana Vilas’

House, Vadavathoor P.O., Kottayam – 686 010 (by Adv. C.S. Rajmohan and Adv. Nithya S.)

APPEAL No.103/2024 APPELLANT:

Dr. S. Anilkumar, S/o Late N. Somasekharan, ‘Lakshmi Narayana Vilas’

House, Vadavathoor P.O., Kottayam – 686 010 (by Adv. C.S. Rajmohan and Adv. Nithya S.)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1.

The Managing Director & CEO, IDBI Bank Limited, IDBI Towers, WTC Complex, Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Mumbai – 400 005

2.

The Deputy Managing Director (Legal), IDBI Bank Limited, IDBI Towers, WTC Complex, Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Mumbai – 400 005

3.

The Regional Head, IDBI Bank Limited, Regional Office, Panampally Nagar, Kochi – 682 036

4.

The Branch Head, IDBI Bank, Sea Queen Building, Near Chnagampuzha Park, NH 47, Edappally, Kochi (by Adv. Kulathoor N. Mohanakumaran Nair)

COMMON JUDGEMENT HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT The appellant in appeal No. 684/2023 is the fourth opposite party and the appellant in appeal No. 103/2024 is the complainant in C.C.No.07/2022 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kottayam (for short, ‘the District Commission’).

th

2. The complainant availed an education loan for his son from the 4 opposite party by depositing the title deed and other documents of the complainant. The complainant closed the entire loan amount and requested to return the title deed and th other documents entrusted by the complainant with the 4 opposite party. However, th the 4 opposite party informed the complainant that the said documents were irrecoverably destroyed in a fire accident occurred at the leased storage premises of the bank. As far as an immovable property is concerned, the most valuable document is the title deed of the property. It is the only document to prove the ownership and possession of the property by the complainant. Neither the banks nor any financial institution would give loan without the original title deed and original documents. The attempt of the complainant to avail loan from other banks for the further education of his son was proved to be in vain as the complainant could not submit the original title deed and other documents with the bank. The value of the property has been diminished by 90%, since the documents were destroyed. In the said circumstances, the complainant filed the above complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

3. The opposite parties filed a joint version admitting the availing of the loan th and the deposit of title deed and other documents by the complainant with the 4 th opposite party. The 4 opposite party further contended that as the storage of original th documents is centralised at Mumbai, the 4 opposite party had forwarded all the documents including the titled deed to their office at Mumbai for the purpose of storage at their custody. The Stock Holding Documents Management Services Limited (for short SDML) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Stock Holding Corporation of India Lim