JUDGMENT : RAJESH SHANKAR --- 1. The present appeal is directed against the order/judgment dated 17.04.2018 passed in W.P. (C) No. 4238 of 2012 whereby the said writ petition filed by the petitioner/original appellant- Lal Chand Mahto (since deceased) was disposed of directing the respondent- Allahabad Bank (now Indian Bank) (hereinafter referred as the said Bank) to hand over the certified copy of the sale deed to the original appellant with an undertaking that if the lost document was mis- utilized by any person, the said bank would compensate him for any loss incurred on account of misuse of the original sale deed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the original appellant (the then Chairman of ‘Land Looser Sahyog Samiti Limited’) along with the present appellant being the partners of ‘Displaced Transport Company’, had taken loan from the said Bank by depositing the original sale deed in question and other original papers of the concerned land by way of usufructuary/equitable mortgage. They repaid the loan amount much before the stipulated time and thereafter approached the said Bank to return the original sale deed and other documents pertaining to their land, but the matter remained unresponded. In the meantime, the appellants’ Samiti made a request to the United Bank of India for a loan of Rs.2 crores to run the transport business which was though sanctioned, but the Bank demanded original sale deed and other documents related to the concerned land of the appellant which was to be deposited before it by way of equitable mortgage. 3. It has further been submitted that the original sale deed and other papers of the concerned landed property could not be deposited before the United Bank of India as the same were lying in the custody of the said Bank due to which the loan amount, which was sanctioned by the United Bank of India, could not be released and resultantly, the business of the ‘Displaced Transport Company’ immensely suffered. 4. It has also been submitted that the original appellant finally wrote a letter to the said Bank to return the original sale deed in question and other documents which were lying in its custody, however the respondent no. 3 informed him that the original sale deed and other original documents of the concerned land were missing. 4. It has also been submitted that the original appellant finally wrote a letter to the said Bank to return the original sale deed in question and other documents which were lying in its custody, however the respondent no. 3 informed him that the original sale deed and other original documents of the concerned land were missing. Thereafter, the original appellant filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 4238 of 2012 seeking issuance of direction upon the said Bank to handover the original sale deed and other original documents of the concerned land which were deposited by him by way of usufructuary mortgage towards the loan amount. 5. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 17.04.2018 directing the said Bank to hand over the certified copy of the sale deed to the original appellant with an undertaking that if the lost document was mis-utilized by any person, the said Bank would compensate him for any loss which might incur on account of misuse of original sale deed. 6. It has further been urged that the business of the said co- operative society has been adversely affected for more than a decade due to fault of the said Bank and as such the damages quantified to the tune of Rs.1 crore should be indemnified by the said bank. 7. It has also been contended that the certified copy of the sale deed may be treated to be an original one in order to prevent further sufferance of business of the said co-operative society of which the appellant is the Chairman. 8. It has further been submitted that the respondent no.3 had sanctioned the loan amount on deposit of the original sale deed, however the same was not returned even after clearing the loan which manifests gross arbitrariness on the part of the respondent no.3. The appellant is facing immense trouble and pecuniary loss for more than a decade in the absence of the original sale deed for no fault on his part. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that the learned Single Judge ought to have considered that it was the responsibility of the said Bank to return the original sale deed and other original documents of the land in question soon after closure of the loan account. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that the learned Single Judge ought to have considered that it was the responsibility of the said Bank to return the original sale deed and other original documents of the land in question soon after closure of the loan account. It has also been contended that the learned Single Judge ought to have considered that the original appellant was neither negligent nor at fault from the date of taking the loan till finally discharging the same, but was made to suffer a huge loss due to inaction on the part of the said Bank and as such, he was entitled to be paid adequate compensation for the loss of the sale deed. 10. It has also been submitted that the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order dated 17.04.2018 ought to have considered that unless the certified copy of the sale deed in question is treated as original, it will be of no use to the appellant. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Bank has submitted that the learned Single Judge while directing the said Bank to hand over the certified copy of the original sale deed to the original appellant, has also ordered that he will be compensated by the Bank in case of misuse of the original sale deed and as such the same needs no interference by this Court. 12. It has further been submitted that the loan account was closed on 16.02.2005 itself and therefore, the appellant should have approached the Bank immediately after closure of the loan account for taking back the original documents, however he approached the Bank only on 03.03.2011 and as such, the Bank was not in a position to trace out the original sale deed. 13. It has also been contended that the appellant himself was negligent in demanding the original sale deed from the said Bank and as such he is not entitled to be compensated for loss of the original sale deed. Moreover, as per the circular of the said Bank dated 01.07.2014, in the event of loss of title deeds of mortgaged property at the hands of the Bank, compensation is payable to the extent of Rs.1000/- plus out of pocket expenses for obtaining duplicate documents. 14. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 15. Moreover, as per the circular of the said Bank dated 01.07.2014, in the event of loss of title deeds of mortgaged property at the hands of the Bank, compensation is payable to the extent of Rs.1000/- plus out of pocket expenses for obtaining duplicate documents. 14. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 15. Thrust of the argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that once the original sale deed was deposited by the appellant with the said Bank, it was the responsibility of the said Bank to keep it safe and since the sale deed deposited by the appellant has been lost due to the fault of the Bank, the appellant is entitled to be compensated for the loss caused to him. 16. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Allahabad Bank (now Indian Bank) has submitted that the original sale deed was lost due to own negligence of the appellant as he did not approach the said Bank for return of the sale deed immediately after closure of the loan account and as such, he is not entitled to get any compensation from the said Bank for the loss of the sale deed. 17. It is an admitted fact that the appellant had deposited the original sale deed as a usufructuary mortgage for taking loan from said Bank and the loan amount was repaid by him within the stipulated time. It is also an admitted fact that the original sale deed deposited by the appellant was lost from the custody of the said Bank. 18. Though learned counsel for the said Bank has tried to convince this Court that the original documents of the sale deed in question as well as other documents were lost due to own negligence of the appellant as the same were not taken back by him immediately after closure of the loan account, however the said Bank has not brought on record any agreement between the Bank and appellant to the effect that it was mandatory for the appellant to take back the mortgaged documents of his concerned land within a fixed period of time. The said Bank has also failed to bring on record any letter issued by the concerned official of the Bank to the appellant informing him to take back the original documents. The said Bank has also failed to bring on record any letter issued by the concerned official of the Bank to the appellant informing him to take back the original documents. Moreover, once the original documents were submitted before the said Bank, it was its responsibility to keep those safe till the same were taken back by the mortgagor. 19. We have perused the impugned judgment dated 17.04.2018 rendered by the learned Single Judge, the relevant part of which is quoted hereinbelow: - “ 10. This Court is of the considered view that the title documents i.e. the original sale-deed no. 450 dated 30.01.1984 is a valuable document and once it is lost the respondent Allahabad Bank cannot escape from its liability and responsibility by referring to the Circular dated 01.07.2014 by saying that in the event of loss of title deed, the Bank is liable to pay compensation only to the extent of Rs.1,000/- plus out of pocket expenses for obtaining duplicate documents. This court is of the considered view that the compensation policy of the Bank to the extent it relates to compensation payable in case of loss of original title deed by the Respondent Bank as contained in circular dated 01.07.2014 is neither sufficient nor has any statutory force and is not binding upon the appellant and the appellant is required to be protected and compensated in case the lost original sale deed is misused. 11. Considering the fact that the original sale-deed has been misplaced by the respondent- Allahabad Bank, the respondent – Bank has to bear some responsibility so that the rights of the appellant is protected and the appellant is compensated in case the lost original sale deed is misused. The original documents which have been misplaced by the respondent- Allahabad Bank can be misused by any person. In such circumstances, the Bank ought to have filed First Information Report to the police in connection with loss of document and ought to have given a newspaper publication regarding the loss of the title- deed and thereafter, the Bank ought to have taken out the certified copy of the sale-deed and handed it over to the appellant alongwith the certified copy of the First Information Report as well as the newspaper publication regarding loss of the original sale deed no. 450 dated 30.01.1984. 12. 450 dated 30.01.1984. 12. Considering the fact that original documents have been lost, the appellant has no option but to take the certified copy alongwith the connected documents so that the same can be used by the appellant in accordance with law. 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the respondent- Allahabad Bank is directed to complete the aforesaid procedure and hand over the certified copy of the sale-deed to the appellant with an undertaking that if the lost document is misutilized by any person, the Bank would compensate the appellant for any loss which may be incurred by the appellant on account of misuse of original sale-deed no. 450 dated 30.01.1984. The respondent- Allahabad Bank is directed to do the needful within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 20. We are of the view that the original sale deed was lost due to the fault of the said Bank and not of the appellant. Though the learned Single Judge was right in observing that once the title deed of the concerned land was lost by the said Bank, it cannot escape its liability and responsibility by referring to the Circular dated 01.07.2014 contending that the Bank is liable to pay compensation only to the extent of Rs.1,000/- plus out of pocket expenses for obtaining duplicate documents, however the direction issued to the said Bank to obtain certified copy of the sale deed in question and to handover the same to the appellant cannot be said to be sufficient. The certified copy of any document cannot be equated with the original one and the same is regarded as the secondary piece of evidence. Thus, the loss of the original documents particularly the sale deed in question cannot be compensated merely with the supply of certified copy of the original. 21. We are therefore of the view that the appellant is entitled to be adequately compensated for loss of the original sale deed in question from the custody of the said Bank. Moreover, the said Bank should not have taken causal approach in the present matter. It should have rather taken stern action against the erring officials so that such lapse is not repeated in future. 22. Moreover, the said Bank should not have taken causal approach in the present matter. It should have rather taken stern action against the erring officials so that such lapse is not repeated in future. 22. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has contended that ‘Sanha’ relating to missing of the original sale deed in question has already been lodged by the said Bank in the concerned Police Station. We are of the view that lodging of ‘Sanha’ by the Bank cannot be treated as appropriate action considering the gravity of the matter. The said Bank was required to lodge an F.I.R. in the matter to find out the real culprit as well as to trace the original sale deed of the appellant which was a valuable piece of document. 23. In view of the aforesaid discussion, over and above the direction of the learned Single Judge as contained in the order dated 17.04.2018, following directions are issued to the said Bank: - (i) The said Bank shall pay Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) as lumpsum compensation to the appellant. (ii) The appellant will be at liberty to move the appropriate civil court seeking further compensation, if so advised. (iii) The said Bank is directed to lodge an F.I.R against its erring officer(s)/official(s) regarding the loss of the original sale deed in question as well as other documents which were deposited by the appellant while taking loan from the said bank. (iv) The said Bank is further directed to initiate departmental proceeding against the erring officer(s)/official(s) who were responsible for the loss of the said documents. (v) The entire exercise shall be done by the said Bank within four weeks from the date of this order. 24. The present appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.