HON'BLE MR. DINESH SINGH, MEMBER

1. This Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', challenging the Order dated 14.11.2019 of The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission', in F.A. No. 1116 of 2019 arising out of the Order dated 25.09.2019 in C.C. No. 1079 of 2017 passed by The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alwar, hereinafter referred to as the 'District Forum'.

The Petitioners herein, ICICI Bank Limited, were the Opposite Parties before the District Forum, and are hereinafter being referred to as the 'Bank'.

The Respondents herein, Mr. Rajesh Khandelwal and Mrs. Prabha Khandelwal, were the Complainants before the District Forum, and are hereinafter being referred to as the 'Complainants'.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Bank on admission. Perused the material on record including inter alia the Order dated 25.09.2019 of the District Forum, the impugned Order dated 14.11.2019 of the State Commission and the Memorandum of Petition.

3. The short point in this case is that the Complainants took a home loan from the Bank. They deposited the original registered sale-deed of their subject flat with the Bank. On inquiry, the Bank reported that the said original registered sale-deed has been lost / misplaced. The Complainants filed a Complaint before the District Forum on 12.09.2017 alleging 'deficiency in service' on the part of the Bank.

4. The District Forum appraised the evidence, and, vide its Order dated 25.09.2019, allowed the Complaint.

For ready perusal, extracts from the appraisal made by the District Forum are reproduced below:

5. It is accepted without dispute that the complainant had taken a loan of Rs. 17,50,000/- from the Opposite Parties in March 2011. At the time of taking the loan, the Complainant had deposited the Sale Deed (which was executed on 18.08.2011) of his flat No. 801, Wonder Heights, Malviya Nagar, Alwar to the Opposite Parties. In addition to this, the complainant had also deposited several other documents along with the Sale Deed. It is also accepted fact that the Original Sale Deed of the Complainants was lost at the hands of the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties said that they were searching the mentioned document however the same were not found. It is also accepted that the Opposite Parties have been searching the documents since January 2017 and the same was still not found. It is thus clear that there is no possibility of finding those documents in the future. The Opposite Parties have not clarified as to how did the document got lost. According to the Forum, the document is lost due to negligence on part of the Opposite Party. The mentioned document is an important document and is the principal sale / title deed for the residence of the Complainants. The same cannot be made again. In order to secure the loan, the Opposite

2

Parties try to get the Sale Deed of the Consumers, thus the responsibility of keeping those documents safe is of the OP Bank. But the OP Bank did not keep the document safe, thus this depict the fault in the service of the Opposite Parties.

6. In the mentioned deliberation, it is proved that the Original Sale Deed of the Complainant got lost due to carelessness of the Opposite Parties and the Original documents cannot be made again. In such situation, it is appropriate to direct the Opposite Parties that they should register the loss of the Original Sale Deed of Complainant in the concerned Police Station, publish a public notification in the national newspaper, Rajasthan Daily Newspaper and Daily Newspaper of Alwar; and procure true certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 18.08.2011 from Office of Sub Registrar and indicate a note stating the reason of the same and that the lost occurred due to fault on the part of Opposite Parties. In such respect, the documents should be made and given to the Complainant and a copy of the same should be included in the records of the Opposite Parties which would be equivalent to the Original document.

7. The Opposite Parties have lost the document due to their carelessness leading to physical, mental and financial difficulties to the Complainant and the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency in service on their part. Therefore, to cover the damages, the Complainant should get Rs. 1,00,000/- from the Opposite Parties. It is important to direct OPs to or compensate for their carelessness so that Consumers like the Complainant himself do not face such circumstances in future. Thus, it is suitable to impose the penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- against the Opposite Parties. Thus the Complaint of the Complainant is bound to be accepted.

ORDER

8. Therefore, in the Complaint by the Complainants against the Opposite Parties under the Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986; it is directed that the Opposite Parties should register a complaint in the concerned Police Station regarding the lost Original Sale Deed. They should publish the same in the National Newspaper, in the Daily Newspaper of Rajasthan and Alwar and procure a Certified Copy of the Sale Deed dated 18.08.2011 and notify in the copy itself that the Original document lost due to fault of the Opposite Parties. On preparing such documents, they should be handed over to the Complainant and a copy of the same should be included in the records of the Opposite Parties, which will be equivalent to the Original Document. For the compensation of the physical, financial and mental agony, the OPs shall make payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation cost, thus in total Rs. 1,05,000/- (One Lakh Five Thousands only). The direction should be followed within one month.

The Opposite Parties should within one-month deposit a Cheque of Rs. 1,00,000/- in the name of Consumer Welfare Fund. (In words, cheque of One Lakh in the Forum). If the Opposite Parties do not deposit mentioned cheque in the Consumer Welfare Fund within One Month, legal action will be taken against the mentioned OP and for the same along with a copy of the decision, separate pleading should be opened and presented before the forum. If the decision is not followed within One Month, then the Appellant is bound to pay an annual interest of the 9% on the decided amount.

3

(as per the translated copy furnished by the Bank with its Petition with its Petition)

5. The Bank filed an Appeal under Section 15 of the Act before the State Commission. The State Commission also appraised the evidence, and, vide its Order dated 14.11.2019, dismissed the Appeal.

For ready perusal, extracts from the appraisal made by the State Commission are reproduced below:

The complainants had taken a loan on the flat. They wanted to take the Original Title Deed in regard of payment of the loan amount. The Appellant failed to give the same and mentioned it to be lost. In relation to this, in IV (2018) 206 (NC) Rajesh Gupta vs. Axis Bank Ltd, the Hon'ble National Commission has decided the following:

Consumer Protection Act. 1986 - Section 2(1)(g); 14(1)(d), 21(a)(i) - Banking and Financial Institutions Services Loan account closed - Non-return of documents - Documents lost - Deficiency in service - OP has failed to return all documents which were entrusted to them by complainant - Opposite party cannot at this stage take plea that documents which they failed to return were of no value - Had that been so, there was no occasion for OP to ask complainant to deposit these documents for sanction of loan - OP-bank is directed to issue indemnity bond in favour of complainant, Rs. 50,00,000 to complainant towards financial damages, Rs. 50,000 towards mental agony, harassment, etc. and Rs. 15,000 towards litigation expenses. According to the settled principles of the Hon'ble National Commission, the non-returning of Original documents depicts deficiency in services and is an Unfair Trade Practice. There is no error in the Final Order passed by the Learned District Forum. Therefore, the appeal of the appellants is liable to be rejected, thus is rejected.

(as per the translated copy furnished by the Bank with its Petition)

6. It is well-evinced, and, in fact, it is admitted to by the Bank itself, that it has lost / misplaced the original document i.e. the original registered sale-deed of the Complainants' flat.

7. It is seen that both the Fora below, the District Forum, and the State Commission, have correctly appreciated the evidence and passed reasoned Orders. Extracts from the respective appraisal made by the two Fora, quoted in paras 4 and 5 above, are in particular noteworthy. The two Fora have returned concurrent findings.

Within the ambit and scope of Section 21(b), no palpable or crucial error in appreciating the evidence by the two Fora below is visible, as may cause to require de novo re-appreciation of the evidence in Revision.

8. The District Forum has ordered the Bank to reconstruct the document, by lodging a complaint with the concerned Police Station, publishing public notice in newspapers and procuring certified copy of the registered sale-deed from the concerned Sub-Registrar Office.

4

The District Forum has also directed that the so reconstructed document be now kept by the Complainants, and a copy thereof be retained by the Bank.

It has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and cost of litigation of Rs. 5,000/- to the Complainants.

It has also imposed cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the Bank, to be deposited in the Consumer Welfare Fund.

9. In the given facts and specificities of the matter, the order made by the District Forum is just and equitable.

It is self-evidently fair, and albeit necessary, that, to, now atleast, ensure its safety and security, the reconstructed document be kept by the Complainants, and a copy thereof be retained by the Bank.

The Bank has already, once, lost / misplaced the original registered sale-deed of the Complainants' flat. The District Forum has rightly refrained from trusting it to keep the reconstructed document safe and secure.

In the given facts it would be unjust and inequitable for the Bank to, yet again, retain the reconstructed document. Its contentions on this count are out-and-out untenable.

10. It may be noted that an original registered sale-deed is an important document, its loss adversely affects the property. Even if the document is reconstructed, a question still obtains on the property, and continues in perpetuity.

11. No jurisdictional error, or a legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice, is visible, as may require interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission.

12. There is nothing on record to show that the Bank conducted any internal inquiry to fix responsibility or undertook any action to imbibe systemic improvements for future. The Bank's position is difficult to understand, or appreciate.

When, by its own admission, it lost / misplaced the original document of the Complainants, it should have, on its own, in the normal wont of its functioning, got the document reconstructed, handed over the reconstructed document to the Complainants, with courtesy and apology, as also conducted an internal inquiry to fix responsibility as well as undertaken systemic improvements for future.

It, however, rather deemed it apt to contest the case before the District Forum, and after a (self- evidently) fair order from the District Forum, deemed it apt to appeal before the State Commission, and, after its appeal was dismissed on merit, it further deemed it apt to prefer revision before this Commission (where, too, its case fails miserably on admission itself). It is also noted that the directions contained in the District Forum's Order of 25.09.2019 have not yet been complied with in their entirety, till date.

5

13. All this is not viewed favourably, this necessitates cost and advice.

14. The Revision Petition, being patently ill-conceived and totally bereft of merit, is dismissed with stern advice of caution to the Bank, through its Chief Executive, by imposition of cost of Rs. 1,00,000/-, out of which Rs. 50,000/- shall be paid to the Complainants and Rs. 50,000/- shall be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of the District Forum, within four weeks of the pronouncement of this Order.

In addition, the Bank, through its Chief Executive, is advised to conduct inquiry to fix responsibility for the loss of the original document of the Complainants as also to inculcate and imbibe systemic improvements to avert such deficiency in future qua 'consumers' in general.

15. The State Commission's impugned Order is confirmed. The order made by the District Forum is sustained.

16. The Bank, through its Chief Executive, is directed to ensure timely compliance (paras 14

and 15 above).

17. In case of failure or omission in timely compliance, the District Forum shall undertake execution, for 'Enforcement' under Section 25(3) and for 'Penalties' under Section 27 of the Act, as per the law.

18. A copy each of this Order be sent by the Registry to the Chief Executive of the Bank, to the District Forum and to the Complainants within three days of its pronouncement.

......................

DINESH SINGH

PRESIDING MEMBER

6