Lex juris

15/09/2024

24/03/2024

Happy Holi

12/11/2020

wish you and your family very happy and safe diwali

20/01/2020

NCDRC directs SBI to pay ₹5 lakh compensation for losing title deed of customer

The consumer forum had also directed the SBI to publish the loss of the original title deed in three leading daily newspapers and lodge an FIR
The bank admitted that the loan had been paid but said that the title deeds were not traceable

NEW DELHI : Apex consumer commission NCDRC has directed State Bank of India to pay ₹5 lakh as compensation to a customer for failing to return him the title deeds of his property which was deposited with the bank against a loan.

Kolkata resident Amitesh Mazumder had taken a loan of ₹13.5 lakh from SBI against the title deed of the property which was not returned to him even after repaying the loan amount in full.

The bank admitted that the loan had been paid by Mazumder but said that the title deeds were not traceable.

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) observed that without the title deed, the customer would not get the true market value of the property nor will any bank give him a loan in the future.

"No one in the market will agree to purchase an immovable property on payment of its prevailing market value if he knows that the original title deed of the property will not be delivered to him by the seller.

"If the complainant decides to take a loan against the property, he will not be able to get a ready lender in the market unless the title deeds of the property are deposited. In fact, even a bank may be unwilling to give a loan against an immovable property unless the title deeds of the property are deposited with it," NCDRC presiding member V K Jain said.

The commission upheld the order of the West Bengal State Consumer Commission which had directed SBI to pay ₹5 lakh compensation and litigation cost of ₹30,000 to Mazumder.

The consumer forum had also directed the SBI to publish the loss of the original title deed in three leading daily newspapers and lodge an FIR.

The NCDRC, while rejecting the revision petition of the bank, said that even the compensation awarded by both the state and the district commissions was not sufficient to make up for the loss in the market value of the property.

"Therefore, the compensation awarded by the fora below was eminently justified on account of the petitioner bank having lost the title deeds of the immovable property of the complainant. The view taken by the fora below does not call for any interference by this commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction," the NCDRC observed.

12/01/2020

TWO YEAR IMPRISONMENT FOR POLICE IF REFUSE TO FILE FIR

Usually, the FIR should be registered in the police station within where the crime took place. But there are situations where police refuse to file FIR. According to new amendment in the law, if police refuse to file FIR there will be two-year imprisonment as punishment. A police officer who comes to know about a cognizable offence can file an FIR himself/herself. It is possible to send a complaint in writing and by post to the Superintendent of Police. If the SP is satisfied with your complaint then he/she shall either investigate the case himself/herself or order an investigation to be made. And it is not always necessary to go in person to register the FIR. Email or phone call is also enough to register an FIR in case of emergency. There are certain sections in the Indian penal code that authorizes to register FIR by the police and also constitutes stringent punishments against refusal in registering FIR.
Section 166 in The Indian Penal Code states about Public servant disobeying law, with intent to cause injury to any person. Whoever, being a public servant, knowingly diso­beys any direction of the law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public servant, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will, by such disobedience, cause injury to any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

Also by Section 166A Public Servant disobeying direction under Law, Whoever, being a public servant knowingly disobeys any direction of the law which prohibits him from requiring the attendance at any place of any person for the purpose of investigation into an offence or any other, or knowingly disobeys, to the prejudice of any person, any other direction of the law regulating the manner in which he shall conduct such investigation, or fails to record any information given to him under sub-section (1) of section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in relation to cognizable offence punishable under section 326A, section 326B, section 354, section 354B, section 370, section 370A, section 376, section 376A, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376E or section 509, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to two years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Punishment for non treatment of victim is given in the Section 166B that mentions that Whoever, being in charge of a hospital, public or private, whether run by the Central Government, the State Government, local bodies or any other person, contravenes the provisions of section 357C of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both.

Public servant framing an incorrect document with intent to cause injury is provided in the Section 167 Whoever, being a public servant, and being, as such public servant, charged with the preparation or translation of any document or electronic record, frames or translates that document or electronic record in a manner which he knows or believes to be incorrect, intending thereby to cause or knowing it to be likely that he may thereby cause injury to any person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either des c r i p tion for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.