PARVEEN KUMAR Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainants for enhancement of the amount awarded vide order dated 12.8.2010 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) vide which the complaint filed by the complainants/appellants was allowed and the OPs/respondents were directed to pay to the complainants a sum of Rs.30,000 as compensation for causing physical harassment and mental agony and Rs. 5,000 as costs of litigation.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the complainants availed a loan of Rs. 3.00 lacs from OP No. 1, repayable in 15 years. In order to secure the said loan, the original Lease Deed in respect of H.No. 400, Sector 46, Chandigarh, executed in the name of complainants by Chandigarh Housing Board, was mortgaged with the OP Bank. The entire loan amount was repaid in the year 1998. Thereafter, complainants took another loan of Rs. 4.50 lacs in the year 2000 -01 from OP bank and the Lease Deed of H.No. 400, Sector 46, Chandigarh, already lying with OP Bank, Was retained by them as security towards the new loan. Thereafter in the year 2006, the complainants approached OP Bank for paying back the entire amount of the loan and return the original lease deed, but to their shock, the OP bank misplaced the original Lease Deed due to which, the loan account was not secured up for the closing of the account in question. In this respect, several letters were written to the OP bank, but to no avail. Ultimately the complainants sent a legal notice to them, but in spite of that the bank failed to return the lease deed in original to the complainants and did not even provide them with an attested photocopy of the same. It was also averred that besides the above loan amount, the complainants had the liability towards the cash credit limit. It was further averred that the complainants wanted to repay the entire loan amounts out of the sale proceeds of the house in question so as to save the component of interest which had been paid by them but due to the above deficient and negligent act of OP bank in misplacing their original lease deed, the complainants suffered irreparable financial loss. It was stated that when the complainants wanted to sell the house in question, its market value was Rs. 3.50 crores which was reduced to the tune of Rs. 2.80 crores, as such they suffered huge financial loss. Besides this, they also suffered physical harassment and mental agony, due to the above deficient act of OPs as the original lease deed was a very important and valuable security/document. Hence, this complaint was filed claiming compensation of Rs. 19.50 lacs towards the loss suffered by the complainants along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing this complaint till realization and Rs. 25,000 as cost of litigation.

(3.) OPS in their joint reply admitted the grant of loan and other amounts to the complainant from time -to -time. It was submitted that the lease hold property of the complainants had already been converted into Free Hold and the lease deed became redundant and the complainants were free to sell the property and, therefore, they had not suffered any loss as alleged. It was stated that the agreement to sell produced by the complainants was a fake, fabricated and created document. It was further stated that the complaint was hopelessly time barred as the cause of action, if any, had arisen on 25.9.2006, when the alleged legal notice was issued by the complainants. Rest of the allegations were denied and it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.