Date of filing: 10.06.2022 Date of Disposal: 24.06.2025 BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMR DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

DATED: 24^th DAY OF JUNE 2025 CORAM: HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA – PRESIDENT and Mrs. DIVYASHREE M – LADY MEMBER SC/29/A/1209/2022 The Branch Manager Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., New Kantharaje Urs Road, Saraswathipuram, Mysuru. …….. Appellant/s (By Sri.Harish Srivatsa, Adv.)

Vs Dr.Mohan S/o L.P. Gangappa R/at # 12, Mathrushree, Behind Shreeramana Jnana Kendra Adichunchanagiri Road, Kuvempunagar, Mysuru-23. …….. Respondent/s (Served-Absent)

O R A L O R D E R

(PER: HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA, PRESIDENT)

This appeal is filed U/s.41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (In short CP Act) by Appellant/OP challenging the order dtd.27.04.2022 passed in CC/224/2019 on the file of Mysuru District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short District Commission).

2. The Appellant was Opposite Party (OP), Respondent was Complainant before the District Commission. The Rank of the parties shall be as per their status before the District Commission.

3. The undisputed facts are that, the Complainant had availed home loan of Rs.46,50,000/- with OP bank by mortgaging title deeds. In the meantime, Complainant approached State Bank of India to take over the said loan from OP bank. When it was confirmed, the same was intimated to OP bank and a sum of Rs.78,65,000/- transferred to OP Bank and sought for return of original title deeds and refund of excess amount if any paid. Accordingly, OP bank refunded excess amount of Rs.84,787.30/- on 29.01.2018, but failed to return original title deeds deposited with them. Hence, complaint came to be filed before the District Commission.

4. Before the District Commission, OP has filed its version stating that after clearance of loan, no official from SBI came to collect the original title deeds, hence the same was sent back to OP’s Mumbai Branch as per process and later the same were lost. Hence submitted there is no deficiency in service on its part.

5. Before the District Commission, the Complainant examined himself as PW.1 and marked the documents as Ex-P1 to P14. The official of OP examined as RW.1 and marked one document as Ex-R1. District Commission after hearing arguments from both side, allowed the complaint directing OP bank to return all original title deeds within two months, if failed, to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest at 10% p.a. and to pay Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony, Rs.15,000/- towards deficiency in service, Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation within two months, failing which, to pay Rs.5,70,000/- in total with interest at 10% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization. Aggrieved by the same, OP is before this Commission.

6. Heard the learned counsel for Appellant/OP. 7. The Point that arises for our consideration is:

(i) Whether the order of District Commission is erroneous ?

(ii) Does the impugned order call for interference ?

8. Sri.Harish Srivatsa, learned counsel for OP submits that after clearance of loan, no official from SBI came to collect the original title deeds, hence the same was sent back to OP’s Mumbai Branch as per process, during transit were lost. However, Complainant could obtain certified copies of title deeds from Sub-Registrar Office and make use of them. Secondary evidence is permissible under law. Without taking to these aspects, District Commission has awarded exorbitant compensation which needs to be reduced.

9. The Complainant has deposited title deeds at the time of availing the loan. Even after discharging of loan OP is not willing to return the documents on the ground that it was lost. It is the duty of the officials of OP bank to protect the original documents of borrowers, hence, such lame excuses given is not sustainable. Though secondary evidence/documents are permissible under law, not only the sale deed but also other relevant documents cannot be obtained from a