JUSTINE PAIVA Vs. AREA MANAGER, SALES AND SERVICE
LAWS(KERCDRC)-2010-5-7
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on May 03,2010

Justine Paiva Appellant
VERSUS
Area Manager, Sales And Service Respondents

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. The loss of the original sale deed will not in any way affect the complainants' right and title to the property covered by the said sale deed it is a well known fact that the complainant can very well obtain registration copy of the said original sale deed and that the said registration copy can be substituted in the place of the original sale deed. No doubt that the loss of the original sale deed will cause inconvenience to the owner of the said property and that the complainant being the owner of the property has to face difficulties and inconveniences due to the loss of the original sale deed. But that fact cannot be taken as a ground to hold that the complainant suffered such a huge loss of Rs. 50 lakhs on account of the loss of the original sale deed. The claim for Rs. 50,00,000/ - can be treated as an exorbitant and unreasonable claim. It is also to be noted that such a huge amount has been claimed without any justification only because of the fact that the complainant need not pay the Court fee equivalent to the Court fee to be paid in a Civil Suit. In fact, the complainant has misused the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act by making such a tall claim without any basis. The aforesaid method or approach of the complainant cannot be entertained or encouraged.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.