JUSTINE PAIVA Vs. AREA MANAGER, SALES AND SERVICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMPLAINT filed under Section 17 and 18 of the Consumer Protection Act.

(2.) THE above complaint is filed alleging deficiency of service on the pau of the opposite parties in not returning the original sale deed No. 2119/2003 dated 5/5/2003 to the complainant. It is alleged that the complainant availed home loan for an amount of Rs.6,30,000/ - and that the complainant availed only Rs.1,29,000/ - vide loan account No. LBCOC00000 351521 and subsequently the complainant availed a top up loan for an amount of Rs.10,00,000/ - on the strength of the documents furnished as security. It is the further case of the complainant that he closed the earlier loan and that the sub -' sequent loan of Rs.10,00,000/ - was closed by taking another loan from the State Bank of India and that the entire transaction was closed by issuing a cheque dated: 13/5/2009 for an amount of Rs.9,21,000/ -. But the opposite party/bank failed to return the original sale deed No. 2119/03 dated 5/5/03 to SRO, Ernakulam. Complainant alleged deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in returning the original sale deed. The complainant has claimed compensation of Rs. 50,00,000/ - in the event of failure to return the original sale deed. The complainant has also claimed a further sum of Rs. 5,00,000/ - as compensation for the mental agony and sufferings.

(3.) THE complainant has filed photocopy of the sale deed No. 2119/03 dated 5/5/03 of SRO, Ernakulam. The property covered by the said sale deed is having an extent of 6,425 cents. The description of the said property would show that the said property is on the side of a private road and it is situated in a place known as Vaduthala in Cheranallur Village of Ernakulam District. The complainant has not stated anything about the market value of the property covered by the said sale deed. The aforesaid sale deed was given as security for the home loan availed by the complainant from the opposite party/ICICI Bank. On closure of the aforesaid loan transaction, the opposite party/ICICC Bank was bound to return the , original sale deed which was given as security for the loan amount. It is the case of the complainant that the opposite party failed to return the said document and that the complainant was told that the said original sale deed has been irrecoverably lost. Even if the case of the complainant is accepted as such, there cannot be any loss to the tune of Rs. 50,00,000/ - by the lost of the original sale deed. The very recitals in the complaint would make it clear that the said claim for Rs. 50,00,000/ - to compensate the loss of the original sale deed is a tall claim without any basis or justification.