STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/19/A/160/2022 Sri Goutam Chanda PRESENT ADDRESS - S/o, Sunil Chandra. 36/5, Sreenagar, P.O. & P.S.- Barasat, Dist- North 24 Parganas, Kolkata- 700 124. ,WEST BENGAL.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus IDBI Bank Ltd.

PRESENT ADDRESS - AC-32, Bidisha Apartment, First Floor, Krishnapur, Prafulla Kanan, P.S.-

Baguiati, P.O.- Prafulla Kanan, Kolkata- 700 101. ,WEST BENGAL.

IDBI Bank Ltd.

PRESENT ADDRESS - IDBI Tower, WTC Complex, Cuffe Parade, P.S.- Cuffe Parade, P.O.-

Colaba, Mumbai- 400 005. ,WEST BENGAL.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. AJEYA MATILAL , JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MR. NITYASUNDAR TRIVEDI , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

Sri Goutam Chanda, Mr. T.J.Banerjee, Shamim Ahmed (Advocate)

FOR THE RESPONDENT:

IDBI Bank Ltd., Ms. S. Singh. (Advocate)

DATED: 17/07/2025

ORDER

HON’BLE SRI NITYASUNDAR TRIVEDI, MEMBER Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the Judgment passed by the Ld. DCDRC, Barasat, North 24 Parganas, dated 28.06.2022, relating to CC Case No. 218 of 2021 wherein Mr. Goutam Chanda, sole Appellant of this Appeal case was the sole Complainant and the two Respondents of this Appeal Case were the two Ops (OP No.1 & OP No.2), this Appeal has been preferred by the present Appellant.

The fact of the complaint case is in short like that the Appellant/Complainant entered into an agreement for sale with developers on 12.08.2013 for purchasing a flat No. 5B having an th area of more or less 700 sq.ft. on the 4 floor at a consideration price of Rs. 14 Lac for his residential purpose. The developer registered the Deed of Conveyance with the competent Registration Authority on 24.06.2015 and gave possession of a flat measuring more or less 715 sq.ft. against payment of Rs. 14,30,000/-(Rupees Fourteen Lac Thirty Thousand only) which is a little different from the agreement dated 12.08.2013.

The Complainant took loan amounting Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lac only) from the OP No. 1/OP No. 2/Banks to pay for the shortfall amount of consideration money of the flat. The Bank retained the original Deed of conveyance in their custody and the Complainant started paying the EMIs of the Loan amount and in course of time the complainant paid off Rs.7,20,000/- (Rupees Seven Lac Twenty Thousand only).

Around December, 2020 the Complainant went to the Bank on to foreclose the Loan Account but the OP Banks did not show any interest to return original deed of conveyance and other documents under the custody of the Bank but the OPs allegedly did not show any interest for the foreclosing of the Loan.

On 18.12.2020, after much persuasion the Complainant came to know the original documents retained at the Bank were destroyed due to fire incidence and for this they were unable to hand over the same even if the Loan Account was foreclosed. The Complainant informed the Bank that he was ready to foreclose the Loan but if the Bank does not return the original deed of conveyance which was kept as security of the Loan on completion of foreclosing of the Loan Account, no question of repaying the residual EMIs on his part.

The Complainant on 15.03.2021 sent a letter to the Bank but the Bank did not give any reply to that letter. Branding this as deficiency of service, the Complainant filed the complaint case at Ld. DCDRC, Barasat, North 24 Parganas for having relief consisting of alternative arrangement of deed of conveyance at the behest of the Bank moving the competent Registration Authority along with compensation. The Complainant’s prayer was also issuance of a certificate by the Bank Authority to the effect that the original registered Title Deed was destroyed by fire along with compensation by the Bank for their negligence and deficiency in service which caused tremendous mental pain, agony and anxiety for him.

Since the OPs (Bank) did not file any written version within the prescribed period of time, this case was fixed to be heard ex parte. Subsequently, the OPs appeared and prayed for an Order