DISTRICT FORUM :: KADAPA
PRESENT: SMT. B. DURGA KUMARI, B.A.B.L., PRESIDENT I/C
SRI S. ABDUL KHADER BASHA, B.Sc., MEMBER
Friday, the 29th day of February 2008.
C.C. No. 84 /2007.
……Complainant.
Vs
Andhra Bank, Rep. By its Branch Manager,
Kadapa Branch, Kadapa, Kadapa Dist.
Zonal Manager, Andhra Bank,
Zonal Office, Tirupathi, Chittoor Dist.
The General Manager, Andhra Bank,
Head Office, Hyderabad. …… Respondents
This complaint coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri G. Thrivikram Singh, Advocate for the complainant and Sri. G. Srinivasulu Naidu for R-1, R-2 and R-3 called absent and set exparte, and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986.
The brief facts of the complaint are as follows: The complainant is working as teacher. With an intent to construct a house, he applied for housing loan with the 1st Respondent. After due process i.e. furnishing of required documents and furnishing sufficient sureties by the complainant, 1st Respondent sanctioned housing loan Account No.HLPB/01/00000090 and allotted unique customer No.16603992. From the point of availing loan, the complainant has been paying monthly installments by salary cutting through his employer without any default. During the month of September 2005 the complainant observed increasing of loan amount to be paid by him to the 1st Respondent. Immediately, the complainant made enquiries and wrote a letter dt. 16-9-2005 to the 1st Respondent calling upon him to clarify about the increasing of his loan amount. Then, the 1st Respondent sent a letter dt. 25-10-2005 to the complainant, stating that an amount of Rs.17,144/- and another sum of Rs.1,000/- had been debited in loan account towards House Building Liability Insurance without obtaining consent from him. In the said letter 1st Respondent assured to credit the debited amount. After that, the complainant kept quite under the impression that the 1st Respondent one day or other would credit the amount. Apart from his surety the complainant received a demand notice dt. 11-03-2006 from the 1st Respondent that there is a due of amount Rs.20,803/-. The complainant was put to mental stain as he along with his surety received the demand notice without any fault on his part. When the complainant verified about this due, it came to light that the amounts of Rs.17,144/- and Rs.1,000/- which were debited to loan account of the complainant without his consent, towards insurance amount was not yet credited. The complainant again sent a letter dt. 23-5-2006 to the 1st Respondent calling upon him to reduce principal amount from 3,02,240/- to 2,85,096/- from 7-9-2004 and to calculate interest for Rs.2,85,096/- and to issue new balance sheet till may 2006. But, the 1st Respondent did not turn up. The 1st Respondent sent a demand notice to the complainant as well as to his surety demanding to pay Rs.15,465/-. Having vexed with the negligent manner on the part of the 1st Respondent, the complainant sent a notice dt. 21-2-2007 calling upon to adjust amount of Rs.17,144/- and Rs.1,000/- which was debited without his consent towards insurance amount within 7 days. But, the 1st Respondent put a deaf ear. The complainant has been paying the installment amounts regularly, the 1st Respondent chooses to send such illegal demand notices and caused mental agony to the complainant. Because of such type of illegal notices, the complainant was forced to loose his reputation before his surety. Though there was no fault on the part of the complainant, the 1st Respondent has been harassing him by issuing demand notices and causing mental agony. It is primary duty of the 1st Respondent to respond and to verify the letters of the complainant. As without obtaining consent debiting of amount of Rs.17,144/- and Rs.1,000/- into the loan account of the complainant is illegal and calculating the interest on such amount is also not proper. This clearly goes to show negligence on the part of the 1st Respondent. All these matters were brought to the knowledge of the 2nd Respondent, but they did not turn up to settle the matter. Hence, this complaint. Therefore, prayed that the Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to allow the complaint and pass orders in favour of the complainant, directing the Respondents (a) To pay credit an amount of Rs.17,144/- and Rs.1,000/- along with interest imposed on this amount from 7-9-2004 into the loan account of the complainant, which was debited into his account without his consent towards insurance (b) to pay Rs.50,000/- towards damages for degrading complainant’s reputation before his surety by sending demand notices, without any fault on his part (c) to pay Rs.2,000/- towards the costs of the complaint and other relief as the Hon’ble Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
R-1 filed a counter stating that, the complaint filed on behalf of the complainant is illegal, unjust and not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant is put to strict proof of all the allegations except those which are not expressly admitted herein. The facts of the case will not attract the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. Hence this petition has to be dismissed in limine on the point of jurisdiction. The complainant gave declaration that the property along with the house will cost Rs.30,00,000/-. Respondent No.1 proposals to the insurance company to issue insurance policy to the said house for the entire amount of Rs.30,00,000/- without splitting the cost of the building and the land and paid the policy amount. Subsequently the mistake for insuring the policy of the entire amount of Rs.30,00,000/- was rectified and the difference of Rs.9,200/- was credited to the account of the complainant for which he is entitled. The same fact was informed to the complainant. But the complainant taking advantage of the mistake filed this complaint to have unlawfulgain, though the process is going on in between the insurance company and bank to the knowledge of the complainant. There is no malafide intention on the part of this Respondent to issue legal notices to defame before his surety. The notice was sent in routine process. There is no deficiency in service by the Respondent. The complainant is not entitled for the amount under different heads claimed in the complainant. It is therefore prayed that the Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with costs in the interest of justice.
R-1 also filed the additional counter and stating that, R-1 had already filed its counter earlier and the contents of the same may be read as part and parcel. In addition to that counter, Respondent humbly begs to submit the following additional counter. The complainant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- for constructing of second floor and also an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for effecting repairs to the first floor of the said building and the ground floor is existing over the said building. The said loan meant for commercial purpose to improve his building for multi purpose i.e. to lease out or some other commercial purpose. The said amount is not for purchasing and selling article and also providing service and guarantee to the said article. No service is required for construction of the building for which the loan was obtained. Hence, the facts of this case will not attract the provisions under Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as the complainant will not come under the purview of ‘consumer’. The Respondent vide its letter of sanction dated 7-10-2003, clearly disclosed to the complainant that the property which is to be pledged as security for obtaining loan, shall be insured irrespective of loan amount. Here, in the instant case, the complainant has executed an equitable mortgage by deposit of his title deeds pertaining to the property and also gave declaration in R.F 256 by describing the property particulars viz. D.No.2/242, Kondayapalli, Kadapa City and that the property be insured by the Bank for the sum of Rs.30,00,000/-. Hence, the insurance covers to the entire property irrespective of loan amount and this Respondent has acted in accordance with the terms and conditions of the letter of sanction and declaration given by complainant himself. Hence, the question of rendering deficiency of service by the Respondent shall not arise at any stretch of imagination. If the complainant is aggrieved he can proceed to Civil Court to recover the alleged amount, as it requires full-fledged trial by examining witnesses on both sides. Hence, the complaint deserves to be dismissed in limini with costs.
On the basis of above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
1. Whether the complainant is entitle for the relief as prayed for?
2. To what relief?
On behalf of the complainant Ex.A-1 to A-7 were marked, on behalf of the Respondents Ex.B-1 to B-3 were marked. No witnesses were examined on either side. Oral arguments were heard from the both sides.
Point No.1: Ex.A-1 is the X/c of letter dated 25-10-2005 by R-1 addressed to the complainant, Ex.A-2 is the demand notice of Andhra Bank, Kadapa Branch dated 11-3-2006 addressed to the complainant and copy marked to P. Samba Murthy, Ex.A-3 is the X/c of the letter dated 23-5-2006 of the complainant addressed to the Manager, Andhra Bank, Kadapa marking copies to Zonal Manager, Tirupathi and General Manager, Hyderabad, Ex.A-4 is the X/c of demand notice of Andhra Bank, Kadapa Branch dated 5-1-2007 addressed to the complainant, Ex.A-5 is the X/c of letter of the complainant dated 21-2-2007 addressed to the Manager, Andhra Bank, Kadapa, Ex.A-6 is the X/c of City Courier Services receipt dated 22-2-2007 from the complainant addressed to the Manager, Andhra Bank, Kadapa, Ex.A-7 is the X/c of statement of account in the name of the complainant on G.L No.2120, A/c No.HLPB/01/00000090 containing page 3 and 4 from 4-8-2005 to 14-2-2007. Ex.B-1 is the X/c of letter of sanction of Rs.3,00,000/- in HLPB/1/90 dated 7-10-2003 for the purpose of construction of 2nd floor, Ex.B-2 is the X/c of letter of sanction of Rs.2,00,000/- in HLPB/1/91 dated 7-10-2003 for the purpose of repairs to 1st floor, Ex.B-3 is the X/c of letter of the complainant dated 7-10-2003 addressed to the Manager, Andhra Bank.
On 20-12-2007, R-1 filed a petition u/s 151 CPC with a request to re-open the case for arguments on behalf of the Respondent and adjourn the case to some other date. This petition was allowed in IA 233/07 on 22-12-2007.
On 31-12-2007, R-1 filed a petition u/s 151 CPC requesting to permit him to file along with additional counter with relevant documents as the same is essential to defend their version effectively. This petition was allowed in IA 06/08 on 31-1-2008.
R-2 and R-3 called absent and set exparte on 14-2-2008.
As could be seen from the documentary evidence on record clubbed with the oral arguments from both sides, there is no dispute with regards to sanction of loan to the complainant to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- towards the construction of 1st floor and Rs.2,00,000/- towards the repairs of the existing building on the ground floor and both the loans have been sanctioned on the same day i.e. on 7-10-2003. R-1 in his letter Ex.A-1 addressed to the complainant informed that an amount of Rs.17,144/- has been debited to the loan account of the complainant towards insurance premia and that R-1 farely admitted that without obtaining the consent from the complainant the premia was paid. R-1 in his letter Ex.A-1 referred the house loan account HLPB/1/90 for Rs.3,00,000/- loan and there is mention of the insurance coverage for the second loan amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. In view of the clear admission of R-1 in its counter that the insurance premia was paid for the total value of the building along with the site without splitting cost of the land with that of the existing building clearly shows that the insurance premia was paid for the entire amount of Rs.30,000,000/- and that subsequently this mistake of insuring policy for the entire amount of Rs.30,00,000/- was rectified and difference of Rs.9,200/- was credited to the account of the complainant for which he is entitled. These facts are on record without any disputes which are very much in favour of the complainant.
Point No.2: In the result, the complaint is allowed. Directing the Respondent No.1 to credit the difference of Rs.9,200/- to the account of the complainant along with interest @ 9% from 7-9-2004 to till the date of realization and to pay Rs.3,000/- towards the deficiency in service and to pay Rs.1,000/- towards costs of the complaint within one month from the date of receipt of this order. The rest of the claim is dismissed. The case against R-2 and R-3 dismissed.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 29th February 2008.
MEMBER PRESIDENT I/c
Nil For Respondents : Nil
Exhibits marked for Complainant:
addressed to the complainant and copy marked to P. Samba Murthy
Manager, Andhra Bank, Kadapa marking copies to Zonal Manager,
Tirupathi and General Manager, Hyderabad
addressed to the complainant
Manager, Andhra Bank, Kadapa
complainant addressed to the Manager, Andhra Bank, Kadapa
Exhibits marked for Respondents:
7-10-2003
7-10-2003
Manager, Andhra Bank.
PRESIDENT I/c
1) Sri. G. Thrivikram Singh, Advocate, Kadapa
2) Sri. G. Sirnivasulu Naidu, Advocate, Kadapa
3) Zonal Manager, Andhra Bank, Zonal Office, Tirupathi,
Chittoor Dist.
4) The General Manager, Andhra Bank, Head Office,Hyderabad.
1) Copy was made ready on :
2) Copy was dispatched on :
3) Copy was delivered to parties :
V.R.V. - - -
