Ashok Kumar Garg vs United Bank Of India

Sudip Ahluwalia, Member

This Consumer Complaint has been filed under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking award of Rs. 2 Crores and return of original documents along with other ancillary reliefs.

The brief facts leading upto the present Complaint are that the Complainant had taken a loan of Rs.67,690/- from the Opposite Party Bank–Punjab National Bank (earlier known as United Bank of India) having its branch office at Sufdarjang Development Area, New Delhi in 1983. The said loan was sanctioned vide letter No. ADV/HBL/1823/83 against the deposit of title deeds of property bearing no. CA/81, Tagore Garden, New Delhi including Perpetual Lease Deed, Site Plan, Sanctioned Plan Estimate and title search report of the property. It is the case of the Complainant that the he has fully repaid the loan along with interest. However, the Opposite Party has failed to return the original papers of his property.

It is submitted by the Complainant that the said loan was fully liquidated from the Connaught Circus Branch, New Delhi and consequently, a letter dated 08.01.2010 was addressed to the Bank requesting them to handover the original title papers of the Complainant’s property. It is further stated that the aforesaid loan balance along with interest upto September, 1998 was transferred to the Karol Bagh Branch, but the documents were kept with the Opposite Party Branch as per legal procedure. It is averred that the failure of the Opposite Party to return the original papers has caused huge losses to the Complainant as it has prevented him from raising further loans to expand his business; prevented him from transferring/ selling the property and at present, the prices of the property have fallen resulting in a loss of Rs.2 Crores if the property is sold.  It has also caused financial distress to the Complainant post his retirement and the said property was the only source to arrange for a decent wedding of Complainant’s daughter. It is stated by the Complainant that he was in service as Teller with the United Bank of India (now Punjab National Bank) and had retired from the Connaught Circus Service Branch on 31.07.2010. It is further stated that the Complainant had written to the Opposite Party vide letter dated 08.11.2010 thereby demanding his papers. However, neither any response nor the papers were received. Even repeated requests were made to the CMD, Kolkata. However, the Complainant had received a letter 29.11.2010 wherein it was stated that the documents were not traceable and the Opposite Party was rearranging for the certified copy after registration of necessary FIR. The Complainant wrote to the Opposite Party on various occasions for raising his concerns and demanding the papers.

It is the case of the Complainant that the documents have been misplaced due to the fault and negligence of the Opposite Party. It is stated that the papers were entrusted to the Opposite Party’s care who were duty-bound for their safekeeping. It is also stated that the certified copy in place of original papers will not be sufficient. Consequently, a Legal Notice dated 01.12.2014 was sent to the Opposite Party.  However, they have failed to return the papers. Therefore, the present Complaint has been filed, being aggrieved by the failure of the Opposite Party to return the original documents despite payment of loan, hence, alleging unfair trade practices by the Opposite Party. Therefore, the Complainant has prayed as follows:

“It is, therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Commission may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores) to the Complainant as damages and return the original documents of the Complainant’s property i.e. No. CA/81, Tagore Garden, New Delhi; detailed as Perpetual Lease Deed, Site Plan, Sanctioned Plan, Estimate and title search report.

Cost of the petition and such other orders and directions which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may please be also passed in favour of the complainant and against the opposite party in the interest of justice.”

The Respondent did not appear before this Commission in spite of proper service of Notice on account of which it had been proceeded Exparte.

Affidavit in Evidence has been filed by Mr. Ashok Kumar Garg on behalf of the Complainant.

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant. Perused the material available on record.

The facts in this case are very similar to those in “Complaint Case No. 46 of 2015, Rajesh Gupta Vs. M/s. Axis Bank Ltd.”; decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Commission on 27.8.2018.  In that case also, the Complainant had taken loan from the Axis Bank on 27.3.2012.  He thereafter cleared the entire loan liability on 13.11.2013 and his loan account was closed and the Opposite Party Bank did not return his documents including the original Conveyance Deed in his favour,  in spite of repeated demands.  The bank in its response stated that few of the documents which were available with them were returned to the Complainant and rest of those had been lost on account of which they were unable to return the same. In deciding the said Complaint Case, the Coordinate Bench in its final Order observed inter alia –

“7. The Opposite Party has not disputed the fact that they had failed to return all the documents which were entrusted to them by the Complainant.  Apparently, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Party which has caused loss to the Complainant in the form that in the absence of these documents, it would certainly be not easy for the Complainant to put his property in market in case he wants to sell it.  Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party has submitted that the documents, which they have failed to return, have no importance in view of the fact that the Conveyance Deed, original Deed of Apartment, Agreement to Sell have already been returned and the documents, which they have failed to return, are the receipts only and therefore, it cannot be said that any substantial loss has occurred to the Complainant.  Learned Counsel for the Complainant has brought to my notice the fact that a very important document which is Builder Buyer’s Agreement and full and final payment receipt issued by seller and other receipts which show the complete payment and the original allotment letter, all these important documents have been lost by the Opposite Party and therefore, the argument that the lost documents have no value is meritless.

The facts of the case clearly establish that the Opposite Party has failed to discharge their obligation towards their customer and have failed to return all the documents, which were entrusted.  The Opposite Party cannot at this stage take the plea that the documents which they had failed to return were of no value.  Had that been so, meaning thereby that if those documents, which they have lost were of no consequence and no value, there was no occasion for the Opposite Party to ask the Complainant to deposit these documents for sanction of the loan and for its continuance.  Apparently, the documents have the value.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby give the following directions to the Opposite Party:

(i)  Issue Indemnity Bond in favour of the Complainant regarding all these documents;

(ii) Pay Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) to the Complainant towards financial damages;

(iii)  Pay Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the Complainant towards mental agony, harassment, etc.;

(iv)  Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) to the Complainant towards litigation expenses.”

Similarly, in “RP No. 90 of 2020, ICICI Bank Ltd. & Ors.  Vs. Rajesh Khandelwal & Anr., decided on 12.2.2020”, this Commission had dismissed the Revision Petition preferred by the ICICI Bank who had similarly issued loan to the Complainant and had taken his original registered Sale Deed of the hypothecated flat.  When the Complainant had cleared his loan, the Bank was unable to return his Title Deed as it had been lost somewhere.  This Commission, therefore, held that the Bank was guilty of negligence and therefore awarded compensation to the Complainant/Respondent.

The facts of the present case are squarely covered by the ratio of the aforesaid decisions.  If anything, the suffering of the Complainant would appear to be even more acute since he is very old man, who was aged 63 years when he filed the complaint 07 years ago.  Furthermore, he happens to be an employee of the Opposite Party- United Bank of India itself, and it is shocking that the said Bank could have acted with such carelessness in keeping safe custody of the vital documents of their own employee to whom they had advanced the loan which was cleared within time.  He, therefore, would be entitled to be similarly compensated as was done by the Coordinate Bank in CC No. 46 of 2014.

Consequently, this complaint is allowed with the following directions to the Opposite Party –

(i) Issue Indemnity Bond in favour of the Complainant regarding all these documents;

(ii)  Pay Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) to the Complainant towards financial damages;

(iii) Pay Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the Complainant towards mental agony, harassment, etc.;

(iv)  Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) to the Complainant towards litigation expenses.

The above noted payments shall be made by the Respondent/Opposite Party within 04 weeks from today failing which the outstanding amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint, till its actual realisation.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off as having been rendered infructuous.