Skip to main content

Bank to pay man Rs 3 lakh for losing sale deed

IDBI Bank will have to pay compensation of Rs 3.22 lakh to a Pune man after it lost the original sale deed of his property, which he had submitted while procuring a home loan in 2003.

The complainant, Captain Vikrant Apandkar, had sought the document after foreclosing the loan in 2007. "He has been continuously making efforts to obtain the original documents.

The bank disowned its stand in locating and dispatching the original document to the complainant for quite a long time. The complainant was subjected to unnecessary correspondence and follow-up since he had availed the loan in 2003," said the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

Apandkar had earlier filed a complaint against the bank in the district forum. But on May 31, 2012, when the forum dismissed the complaint on the grounds that it was filed late, he filed an appeal in the state commission.

In the appeal, Apandkar said that on June 30, 2007, the bank issued him a no-dues certificate, but told him that the original sale deed was lost. Apandkar said that after submitting the document as evidence for availing the loan in 2003, he repeatedly contacted the bank to retrieve it. The bank said that it had conducted an extensive search to trace the document. However, in 2009, the bank changed its stand and said that the document was never submitted. Aggrieved by the last communication, Apandkar filed the complaint.

The commission held that the district forum had wrongly held that the cause of action arose from 2003, when, in fact, it arose after the bank's last communication in 2009. The commission said that as the complaint was filed in the district forum in 2010, it was valid as it is within two years as required by the Consumer Protection Act.

"The stand taken by the bank was unreasonable and beyond imagination as no bank can advance loan without going through the original documents and taking the custody of such documents," said the commission.

Comment:
The order of the state forum is somewhat strange. While the Ld. Commission was absolutely correct in allowing the petition to be filed as it was within limitation and was also right is suspecting and leaning in favour of the complainant due to the changed stance of the bank, to say that "Stand taken by the bank is unreasonable and beyond the imagination as no Bank can advance loan without going through the original documents and taking the custody of such documents......" is an assumption on which a judgment should not be based.

Comments

Most viewed this month

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...