Original Title Documents of Property of Customer lost by Bank: NCDRC says compensate [Read Order]

The NCDRC has set aside State Commission's order denying compensation to the customer whose bank lost the original title documents of his property.

It allowed the appeal under Section 19 of the Act Consumer Protection Act, 1986 while opining that there are makings of post-haste adjudication and pre-judging of the case on the part of the State Commission which critique the amount of Rs. 95 lakh that has been claimed and has termed it to be ‘very high’.

The Court in attempt to measure the impact of the act of the Bank observed:

"Non-availability of its original title documents unarguably puts a property under suspicion in the eyes of the general public or prospective buyers and decisively impacts its value detrimentally. The consequences continue in perpetuity, they continue even after the property has devolved to the heirs i.e. the value-extenuating consequences sustain indefinitely. The adverse consequences of non-availability of the original title documents do not appear to have been realistically appreciated in the right pragmatic perspective by the State Commission."

Noting that the compensation as claimed might not have been necessarily awarded but the compensation as deemed just and equitable in its own opinion would or could have been ordered, the Court clarified that it by no means implies that the complainant ought to be prematurely forced to drastically reduce his claim ab initio many notches down.

"The direct consequence of the State Commission’s Order is to force the complainant to ask for compensation which is necessarily Rs. 20 lakh or less i.e. which falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Commission."

Briefly, the complainant (the appellant herein) had filed a complaint alleging ‘deficiency in service’ and ‘negligence’ on the part of the bank (the respondent herein) for losing and not
returning the original title documents of his property. He claimed a compensation of Rs. 95 lakh for the depreciation in the value of his property as a result of the non-availability of its
original title documents and Rs. 3.75 lakh for the mental agony and Rs. 1.25 lakh for the cost of litigation i.e. total Rs. 1 crore.

The State Commission in its impugned Order questioned the basis of the claimed compensation of Rs. 95 lakh for the depreciation in the value of the property. Holding that ‘very high’ compensation has been sought for the depreciation in value of the property as also for the mental agony it has dismissed the complaint with liberty to the complainant to approach the District Commission.

Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that going by the letter of the provision relating to pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission, complaints in which the value of
the services and compensation claimed taken together exceeds Rs. 20 lakh but does not exceed Rs. 1 crore can be preferred before it. The complainant had taken a loan of Rs. 20 lakh. However the value of the loan is not relevant since here the cause per se is regarding the bank not returning the original title documents of the property. As such in respect of the present cause the value of the services would be nil. The total compensation claimed was Rs. 1 crore. Hence the complaint undoubtedly fell within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission.

He argued that the State Commission forcing the complainant to necessarily reduce the compensation claimed to Rs. 20 lakh or less even when he wants to agitate for a much higher compensation of Rs. 1 crore since in his opinion and on pragmatic realistic estimate the compensation which he is claiming is in consonance with the loss and injury which he has suffered.

It was thus contended that though the State Commission if it allows his complaint would be within its rights to award compensation which in its own understanding it finds to be just and equitable but it cannot impellingly force the complainant to ab initio pray for a drastically reduced amount and to bring it within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the forum below.

Learned counsel for the bank submits that the complainant is praying for unreasonably and unjustifiably high compensation which is not in consonance with the loss and injury
which he has suffered. The submission is that the State Commission has examined the matter in the correct perspective and has rightly relegated it for the District Commission.

The NCDRC was of the view that it is erroneous to mechanically adopt the value of the loan i.e. Rs. 20 lakh to be the value of the services since this is clearly not the case here.

"The rational and correct proposition would be to take the value of the services to be nil or inapplicable in the context in so far as the present cause is concerned. We see that the State Commission also has not assigned any value for the services. Though not expressly stated in its Order but it is implicit therein that it too has treated the value of the services to be nil. The total compensation claimed is Rs. 1 crore i.e. Rs. 95 lakh for the depreciation in the value of the property as a result of the loss of its original title documents by the bank and Rs. 3.75 lakh for the mental agony and Rs. 1.25 lakh for the cost of litigation. As such the complaint is undoubtedly within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission."

It stated that the observations in respect of the quantum of compensation as have been made in the State Commission’s Order is also so likely to go to unduly influence the District Commission in the contingency that the complaint goes before it and all this is utter detriment of the complainant and necessarily puts him to prejudice unjustly.

It though consciously refrained from making a deeper critique on the question of quantum of compensation and reasoned that the same will amount to influencing the forum since the case has as yet to be adjudicated on its merits.

The Commission opined that that the State Commission should have duly adjudicated the present case on its merits even though it was not bound to give the compensation as claimed but to give the compensation as it may have found in its wisdom reasonable and just in the contingency of deficiency or negligence being finally established on the record. Forcing the complainant to reduce the claim of compensation to Rs.20 lakh or less when he had claimed Rs. 1 crore, concomitant with the adverse observations, appears to be somewhat less than justice.

The National Commission reprimanded the matter back to the State Commission as it deemed it to be 'corrrect position of law'.

CASE TITLE: KAMLESH MEENA VS. HSBC

CORAM: MR. DINESH SINGH,PRESIDING MEMBER

                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE,MEMBER

Advocate: Shalini Jha, Delhi High Court

Read Order @LatestLaws.com:

Picture Source :