When Thanikkudam-based Mr Saseendran and his mother, Smt Sathyavalli, visited their bank on April 26, 2018, to avail a top-up on their earlier agricultural loan, they discovered that the bank had misplaced the original Pattayam (land title deed) of the land they had mortgaged for the earlier loan. Aggrieved by the lapse, they approached the consumer commission.
The commission ordered the bank, a well-known public sector lender, to pay Rs 2.5 lakh compensation to the mother-son duo for losing their land's original Pattayam. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur, comprising C.T. Sabu (President), Sreeja S. (Member), and Ram Mohan R. (Member), passed this judgement on April 29, 2026.
Let's explore the details of this case from Kerala:
The missing Pattayam case
Smt Sathyavalli and Mr Saseendran maintained a savings account with this public sector bank. During a visit to the branch for routine banking work, the branch manager allegedly persuaded them to avail themselves of an agricultural loan by promising some benefits. Acting on this assurance, they (mother and son) took a Rs 3 lakh agricultural loan by mortgaging their 2-acre-20 cent land, said their advocate T.S. Srutheesh.
This agricultural loan was taken in 2014 (loan account No. CKCC3332382945) after depositing certain documents with the bank on March 25, 2014, including the original Pattayam (No. A3-311/11) of their 0.8903 hectare (2-acre-20 cent) land in Madakkathara Village.
On April 26, 2018, when they visited the bank to secure an additional loan of Rs 2 lakh against the same land, the bank informed them that the Pattayam document was missing. Upon hearing this, they were shocked to learn the loss of their land's key property document. After years of searching, the branch manager of the bank on February 2, 2023, issued a declaration stating the loss of the Pattayam document.
Though the bank had given them a duplicate copy of the Pattayam, they (the mother-son duo) contended that the lost document prevented them from selling their property or using it as collateral to raise funds from any financial institution. They also alleged that this irrecoverable loss of the Pattayam document from the bank has caused them severe mental and physical distress as well as economic hardship.
Their advocate (T.S. Srutheesh) sent a legal notice to the bank but did not get any response, and thus, alleging deficiency in service of the bank, they filed a case against the bank.
The consumer commission sent notices to both parties, the manager and the bank; however, neither of them came to contest this case. Thus, the consumer commission proceeded ex-parte (without them). However, later during the ongoing proceedings, the bank submitted its written notes to the Consumer Commission, which the commission accepted as evidence.
Consumer commission's order
A summary of the order is as follows:
Consumer commission rejects bank's argument that only mother took loan so son can't be part of the legal case
The bank, in the written notes, argued that the loan is taken by the mother, and thus, the son has no right to take part in this litigation. However, the consumer commission found that the loan documents issued by the bank indicate that both were the borrowers of the said loan.
Consumer commission rejects the bank's argument that landowners defaulted on loan repayments, and hence, they have no right to seek original documents
The bank also contended that the mother had defaulted on repayment of the loan, and hence, she had no right to seek return of the original documents. The bank also said that her son, in cross-examination, has categorically accepted that they had defaulted on loan repayments.
The consumer commission said that the contention of the banks that they are loan defaulters cannot be accepted as a valid defence to cover up their negligence.
The consumer commission said: "Even assuming that the complainants (the mother-son duo) have defaulted in repayment, the opposite parties (bank) are not absolved of their responsibility to safely preserve the documents entrusted to them."
The consumer commission observed that even if the mother-son duo repaid the entire loan amount, the bank was not in a position to return the original Pattayam document, causing them serious prejudice. Holding that the bank's failure amounted to a clear deficiency in service, the consumer commission ruled in favour of the mother-son duo.
The Hon'ble National Commission held this same view in State Bank of India Vs Amitesh Mazumdar (RP No.2732/2019) by its judgement dated January 3, 2020.
Even if mother-son duo repays the loan in full they (the bank) can't get back the land's Pattayam
The consumer commission said that even full repayment of the debt would not make the property 'scot-free', nor would it enable her (the mother) to exercise full rights over the property, as the original title document is essential for ascertaining ownership and undertaking any transaction.
The consumer commission said: "The knowledge that even upon discharge of the entire loan liability the opposite parties are incapable of restoring the document deprives the complainants of a sense of security and finality, thereby causing persistent anxiety, frustration, and a feeling of helplessness."
The consumer commission observed that she might struggle to realise the property's true market value when she is in a position to sell it. The value of the property would significantly decline if sold without the original title document. Further, if they (the mother-son duo) intend to take a loan by mortgaging the impugned property, they will not be able to get a ready lender unless the original title document of the property is deposited. Even banks or other financial institutions will not be willing to provide a loan against a property if the original title document is not deposited with them.
Therefore, the consumer commission said that they recognise that the situation causes mental distress and unease to the mother-son duo.
Pattayam is irrevocably lost from the possession of the bank
The consumer commission thus analysed the bank loan documents, which also have the bank's endorsement, and said that these documents indicated that the mother-son duo deposited their land's Pattayam with the bank on March 25, 2014.
After the original Pattayam was found missing, the bank's branch manager acknowledge the loss and reported the matter to the higher authorities; he also procured a duplicate copy of the land's Pattayam.
The consumer commission said that a conjoint evaluation of the evidence presented by the mother-son duo would establish the fact that the Pattayam is irrevocably lost from the possession of the bank.
Thus, the consumer commission said that a bank, being a custodian of valuable securities deposited by its customers, is under a legal obligation to maintain and safely keep such documents with utmost care and diligence.
The consumer commission said: "Loss of such vital documents clearly establishes negligence on the part of the opposite parties."
Consumer commission order:
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed as follows:
a) The opposite parties are directed to jointly and severally pay the 1st complainant a sum of Rs 2.5 lakh towards compensation for the agony, hardship and financial loss inflicted on her, and a sum of Rs 10,000 towards the cost of litigation, both with 9% interest p.a. till realisation.
b) The opposite parties shall comply with the above direction within 45 days of receipt of a copy of this order.
c) It is made clear that nothing in this order shall, in any manner, prejudice or deter the opposite parties from adopting any lawful means to realise the outstanding loan liabilities from the complainants or any other concerned party in accordance with law.
