State Bank Of India vs Vallu Sowjanya

The present Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (substituted now) (for short "the Act") has been filed by the Petitioner (hereinafter called as "the Insurance Company") against the order dated 25.06.2013 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, A.P., Hyderabad (for short "the State Commission") in Appeal No.473 of 2012 whereby the Appeal of the State Bank of India against the order dated 15.05.2012 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ranga Reddy (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint No.10 of 2011, was dismissed.

The brief admitted facts of the case are that the complainant wanted to buy a house and he was sanctioned a loan amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- which was repayable in 240 EMIs of Rs. 3,320/-. He had cleared the entire loan amount and No Dues Certificate was also issued to him by the petitioner. The controversy between the parties had arisen when the complainant demanded the return of original sale deed. The petitioner had informed the complainant that he had never deposited the sale deed with the branch of the petitioner, who was processing the loan amount. The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum. The parties led their evidences before the District Forum. The learned District Forum after hearing the parties and perusing the evidences on record, reached to the conclusion that the complainant had deposited the original title deed with the petitioner and directed the petitioner to return the original title deed and pay penalty of Rs. 50,000/-.

Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, an appeal was filed by the petitioner before the State Commission wherein they had taken similar contentions that the complainant had never deposited the title deed with the petitioner. The State Commission after reappreciating and re-assessing the evidences on record rejected the contention and concurred with the ordered of the District Forum vide impugned order.

I have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel.

In the present Revision Petition, the petitioner has raised the same contention that the complainant had never deposited the title deed with the bank.

It is settled proposition of law that this Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act (substituted now as Section 58 (1) (b)) has limited jurisdiction and it is not required to re-ascertain and re-assess the evidences on record and to reach to its own conclusion. It is only required to see whether the findings of the Fora below are perverse. A finding can be said to be perverse only when it is based either on no evidence or a material piece of evidence has been neglected or not considered while reaching to the conclusion. This Commission can also interfere with the concurrent findings where there is a jurisdictional error. None of such situation exists in the present case. The findings of the fora below that the title deeds were deposited by the complainant are based on the documentary evidences, which were duly exhibited and therefore it cannot be said that the findings are based on no evidences. Also, learned Counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any material piece of evidence, which was there on record but was not taken into consideration by the Fora below and that had it been taken into consideration and had it been considered, the findings would have been different. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in numerous cases including "Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. - (2011) 11 SCC 269" as under:

"23. Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two Fora".

Again in "Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H&R Johnson (India) Ltd. and others, (2016) 8 Supreme Court Cases 286," the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the same principle and has held as under:

"17. The National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has either failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in them or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the order passed by the State Commission which is based upon valid and cogent reasons."

In T. Ramalingeswara Rao (Dead) Through L.Rs. and Ors. Vs. N.Madhava Rao and Ors. decided on 05.04.2019 passed in Civil Appeal No. 3408 of 2019, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

"12. When the two Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact against the Plaintiffs, which are based on appreciation of facts and evidence, in our view, such findings being concurrent in nature are binding on the High court. It is only when such findings are found to be against any provision of law or against the pleading or evidence or are found to be perverse, a case for interference may call for by the High Court in its second appellate jurisdiction."

The findings of fora below that the complainant had deposited the title deeds, cannot be found fault with.

The State Commission has issued the following directions while dismissing the appeal:

"In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the impugned order of the District Forum.

The appellants/opp. parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the respondent/complainant towards costs of this appeal."

Vide this order, the State Commission has confirmed the directions of the District Forum. The District Forum vide its order dated 15.05.2012 had issued the following directions:

"In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and we direct the Opposite Parties to return the original title deeds within one month from the date of receipt of this order and we also award a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant and we also direct the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards costs. All the above amounts have to be paid within one month from the date of receipt of this order."

It is clear that the District Forum had directed to return the original title deeds. However, it is apparent that the bank didn't have the title deeds in their possession, although the complainant had deposited the same. Hence, they cannot return it. If this order is not modified, this will remain un-executable. The directions are, therefore, modified as under:

The petitioner is directed to issue a certificate, showing that the title deed deposited by the complainant were lost by them.The certificate shall be issued within eight weeks from today;

Pay all the compensation as awarded by the Fora below i.e. Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) by the District Forum and Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) by the State Commission;

It is apparent that now the complainant has to seek a certified copy of the title deed and it is a common knowledge that the value of the property decreases when the original deeds are not there.The complainant, therefore, needs to be compensated for the loss of the value of her property.There is no method to calculate the actual loss of the property.The Petitioner, therefore, is directed to pay an additional compensation of Rs. 1 lakh to the complainant, keeping in view that the total value of the building was above Rs. 13 lakhs when the loan amount was sanctioned.The entire compensation amount shall be paid within eight weeks to the complainant, failing which, the petitioner is liable to pay interest on this amount @ 9% p.a. till the date of actual payment.

The present Revision Petition stands disposed of with these directions.