LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA Vs. SURINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal filed by Life Insurance Corporation, the only question involved is as to whether compensation granted in this case is for remote or indirect damages suffered by the complainant- Surinder Kaur or were the direct result of the deficiency in rendering service on the part of the appellant-Corporation. Broadly the facts of the case are not in dispute between the parties. Thus they can be summarised.

(2.) Surinder Kaur and her husband, Amrik Singh raised loan of Rs.1,40,000/- from the Corporation against the security of title deed of the property i. e. house raised on Plot No. A-235- 236, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar. On repayment of loan, the account was closed in April, 1994. A demand was made to the Corporation to return the title deed of the house aforesaid. It was represented on behalf of the Corporation that the title deed had been lost on account of shifting of the account to the Branch Office opened at Amritsar. The complainant and her husband wanted to raise loan from Bank of Baroda, Amritsar against deposit of the aforesaid title deed. In the meantime, they obtained copies of the title deed from the Registration Office and created an English Mortgage with the Bank. This had to be done for want of original title deed and the complainant had to suffer loss of Rs.25,000/- i. e. cost of Stamp Paper Rs.22,000/-, Advocate's Fee Rs.2,000/- and Registration Charges Rs.1,000/-. It is this loss, which was sought to be compensated in the complaint filed by the complainant before the District Forum.

(3.) Mr. B. J. Singh, Advocate for the Corporation - appellant has argued that this was indirect or remote loss. As far as title of the complainant to the property is concerned that was safeguarded by getting a certified copy of the original Sale/title Deed from the Registration Office. He has referred to the decision of this Commission in Union of India V/s. B. S. Sangha,1997 2 CPJ 552, wherein in paragraph 10, it was observed that indirect and remote damages are not allowed under the Consumer Protection Act. Further the decision relied upon is of the Gujarat State Commission in Panchanbhai Shankarbhai V/s. Gujarat Electricity Board, 1997 1 CPJ 543. As far as proposition of law is concerned, there is no dispute. But on facts in the present case, we find that the loss suffered by the complainant and her husband was the direct result of deficiency in rendering service i. e. not providing the title deed by the Corporation after closure of the loan account. On the basis of the original title deed, the complainant was not required to effect English Mortgage as the loan could be secured simply by submission of original title deed. It was only on account of the loss of the original title deed that the complainants were forced to raise loan against the English Mortgage created. We find no merit in this appeal, which is dismissed with no order as to costs.