MANOJ MADHUSUDHANAN Vs. ICICI BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This consumer complaint has been filed under sec. 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the 'Act') against the opposite parties on the ground that opposite party no. 1/bank was guilty of deficiency in service in having lost the original title documents pertaining to his property which were deposited with the opposite party no. 1 from whom a housing loan was obtained by the complainant.

(2.) The complainant states that the opposite party no.1 sanctioned a housing loan of Rs.1,86,00,000.00 on 11/4/2016 for the purchase of site no. 474 B, Ideal Homes Cooperative Building Society Ltd., Sector B, Ideal Homes Township, Kenchenahalli, Rajarajeshwari Nagar, Bangalore to be repaid over 20 years at a monthly EMI of Rs.1,72,769.50 per month. Upon execution of the Sale Deed before the Sub Registrar, Rajarajeshwari Nagar on 22/4/2016, the following papers were retained in original by the opposite party 1/bank as security: (i) Registered Sale Deed dtd. 22/4/2016 bearing registration no. 303/2016-17; (ii) Registered Sale Deed dtd. 24/3/2016 bearing registration no. 7380/2015-16; (iii) Possession Certificate issued by Ideal Homes Society; (iv) BDA Khata; (v) BBMP Khata Certificate; (vi) Tax Paid Receipts; (vii) Khata Endorsement issued by the then CMC, Pattangere, Rajarajeshwari Nagar; and (viii) Encumbrance Certificate. No scanned or true copies were provided by the opposite party 1 to the complainant for which the complainant filed a complaint bearing SR No. 418321343 dtd. 14/6/2016. On 21/6/2016 the opposite party 1/bank informed the complainant that they were initiating the process of tracing the misplaced original documents pertaining to the property. On 14/7/2016 representatives of the opposite party 1 informed the complainant that the papers had been lost in transit from Bangalore to its central storage facility in Hyderabad by opposite party no. 2, a courier company. On 8/7/2016 the opposite party conveyed to the complainant that they were deferring the EMIs due till recovery of the original documents and that a legal notice had been served upon opposite party 2 on 18/6/2016. Complainant submits that opposite party 2 accepted its negligence and apologized by email dtd. 25/5/2016 to opposite party 1 and that the opposing party 1 pointed out to opposite party 2 that documents had been misplaced by it on previous occasions as well. It is also stated that negligence of opposite party 1 is established since it is admitted that only the complainant's documents were lost from the packet sent to Hyderabad for which it sought the complainant's consent to file a police complaint and paper publication. Consent of the complainant was also sought to recreate the documents and an offer of compensation of two EMIs was made while it issued a legal notice to the opposite party 2 seeking compensation of Rs.2,50,00,000.00.

(3.) Since the opposite party failed to respond to its efforts to resolve the issue, the complainant approached the Banking Ombudsman on 14/8/2016 which directed the opposite party 1 on 22/9/2016 to issue a duplicate copy of the lost documents, publish a public notice regarding the loss and pay the complainant Rs.25,000.00 towards deficiency in service. A legal notice was served to the opposite party 1 by the complainant on 21/9/2016 which was replied on 24/10/2016 by them negating the previous acceptance of their mistake. While the order of the Ombudsman was complied with by opposite party 1, complainant states that the publication was limited to only Bangalore whereas the papers were lost in Hyderabad. Therefore, it is alleged that opposite party was extremely negligent with regard to the original papers pertaining to his property that is valued at Rs.5,00,00,000.00 and that copies of documents cannot replace the sanctity of the original documents. The complainant is before us with the prayer to: