State Bank Of India vs Leenata Dhamankar

This appeal has been filed by the appellant State Bank of India against the order dated 02.02.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in Consumer Complaint No.CC/13/288.

Brief facts of the case are that the respondent had taken house loan and education loan for her daughter on security of flat No.A-1101, Nirlac Solitaire CHS Ltd., Ghodbunder Road, Chitalsar, Manpada Thane (West) and one LIC policy. When the loan was completely repaid by the respondent/complainant, LIC policy was returned to the complainant, however, the title deed of the said flat No.A-1101 was not returned to the complainant as the same was misplaced by appellant bank. The complainant then filed a Consumer Complaint bearing No.CC/13/288 before the State Commission. The complaint was resisted by the appellant bank by stating that they have already provided certified copy of the title deed and they are searching the original deed. However, the State Commission allowed the complaint and passed the following order:-

"1) Consumer complaint is partly allowed.

2) Opponent bank is directed to pay an amount of Rs.3 lacs [Three Lacs only] to the complainant as compensation with interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 18/07/2013 till realization of amount.

3) Opponent bank is directed to pay an amount of Rs.1 lac [Rs.one lac only] to the complainant towards harassment and mental agony.

4) Opponent bank is directed to pay cost of Rs.50,000/- [Rs.Fifty Thousand only] to the complainant and shall bear his own.

5) Opponent bank shall pay the above mentioned amounts within 45 days from the date of this order.

6) One set of the complaint compilation be retained and rest of the sets be returned to the complainant.

Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost forthwith."

Hence the present appeal by the bank.

Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellant bank stated that the certified copy of the title deed was already provided to the complainant in the year 2011 and for all practical purposes that copy would have worked for the complainant. Now, the bank has found the original title deed and the same has been returned to the respondent/complainant. Thus, in fact, the complainant has not suffered anything as the original title deed has also been returned to the complainant. Even during the intervening period, there was no occasion when the complainant has suffered any loss due to temporary misplacement of the original tittle deed. Hence, order dated 02.02.2016 of the State Commission is required to be set aside.

On the other hand, learned counsel the respondent/complainant stated that though the original title deed has been returned to the complainant, the complainant has suffered mental agony and harassment as the original tittle deed was not returned by the bank even after the full repayment of the loans. During the intervening period, the complainant has constantly suffered threat of misuse of original tittle deed and constant mental tension due to this misplacement. The learned counsel referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh (2004) 5 SCC 65, and stated that the respondent/complainant is entitled to compensation for the mental agony and harassment suffered during the intervening period as that was the clear deficiency on the part of the appellant bank.

I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record. The original complaint was filed for directing the bank to return the original title deed or to compensate the complainant. The original tittle deed could not be searched during the pendency of the consumer complaint before the State Commission and therefore, the State Commission has awarded a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the loss of original title deed and Rs. one lakh for mental agony and harassment. First of all, Section 14(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 gives power to the consumer forum to pay compensation based on the loss and injury suffered by the complainant due to negligence of the opposite party. Clearly, this provision implies that only one consolidated compensation may be allowed by a consumer forum to the complainant. In the present case, the State Commission has allowed two kinds of compensation, which cannot be treated as justified under this provision. As the original title deed has now been returned to the complainant, clearly order relating to compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- goes away. Accordingly, the order of the State Commission awarding compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- is set aside. Now, it is to be seen as to what compensation the complainant is entitled for the delay in furnishing the original title deed to the complainant.

The certified copy of the original tittle deed was already provided to the complainant in the year 2011 and the original title deed has been provided now after passing of the judgment of the State Commission. An additional compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony and harassment seems to be on a higher side. Similarly, the cost of Rs.50,000/- also seems to be on a higher side. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to award a compensation of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) and a cost of litigation of Rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand only) to the complainant instead of the amounts ordered by the State Commission. Thus, total amount of Rs.75,000/- (rupees seventy five thousand only) be paid to the complainant by the appellant bank within a period of 45 days from the date of this order, failing which, an interest @ 9% p.a. shall be payable by the bank to the complainant from the date of this order till actual payment. The First Appeal No.1114 of 2016 stands disposed of accordingly.