C L KHANNA Vs. DENA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS complaint is for return of the title deeds of the gifted property which were pledged with the Bank as a simple mortgage. The original title deeds were deposited on 21st January, 1973. As the said documents are not returned by the Bank on the ground that the same are lost, the Complainant has prayed for compensation and settlement of his loan account. It is the case of the Complainant that he was the proprietor of Apee Industries, 52-A, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi. He had started small scale unit for manufacturing LPG stoves in February, 1973. For financial assistance the Complainant approached Dena Bank to provide two types of facilities to him: (i) Term Loan and (ii) loan on hypothecation for day to day expenses. The limit sanctioned in the Term Loan A/c was Rs.75,000/- out of which the Complainant availed of Rs.44,000/- against the collateral security of the property bearing No. 52-A, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi. For this purpose original title deed i.e. registered gift deed was pledged with the Bank as simple mortgage which was duly acknowledged by the Bank by its letter dated 19th January, 1973. Complainant was also provided with overdraft facility of Rs.25,000/- in the Hypothecation A/c against the machinery and stock. The Bank was duly charging interest as per the Term Loan A/c. As on 8.12.1980, outstanding balance was Rs.32,514/- for which complainant has produced bank statement.

(2.) IT is contended that original title deed which was pledged with the Bank as security was retained by the Bank. However, in 1978 the Bank on an alleged audit objection asked the Complainant to furnish additional security. Hence, the Complainant deposited title deed of his other residential property being property No.11, Abul Fazal Road, New Delhi. As per the books of the Bank, the outstanding amount due from the Complainant was approximately Rs.1,00,000/- in both the accounts in the year 1985. The Complainant was prepared to pay the said amount on release of the aforesaid title deeds. Since the title deeds were not returned, the loan continued and complainant continued to make regular payments towards the liquidation of his liability. Again the Complainant offered to the Bank by its letter dated 26.6.1989 for repayment of loan a/c on title deeds being returned. In spite of the repeated requests title documents pledged with the Bank were not returned. Complainant could not clear the outstanding and was forced to maintain the Loan A/c and paid the interest and instalments.

(3.) IT is the contention of the Complainant that as no compensation was awarded, and outstanding loan amount was not waived off, he had not agreed to the suggestion made by the Ombudsman. It is the case of the Complainant that non-availability or loss of original title deed of the free hold property had resulted in reduced market price of the property. This has resulted because of the deficiency in service by the Bank. For this purpose he contended that complainant is likely to suffer in disposing of the property without its original title deeds. As per his statement in the complaint no dealer was ready to deal in the property without the original title deed and for this he had produced letter dated 12th February, 2002 written by the Property Dealer. Therefore, the Complainant wrote letter on 13th August, 2001 to the Bank for release of the property's document, but the Bank failed to respond. It is stated by the complainant that he has crossed the age of 75 years and that because of the deadlock and shocking negligence on the part of the Bank, he has suffered a lot. Previously, he has claimed more than Rs.6 Crores for the deficiency in service, however, prayer was amended and he has prayed as under: