Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

15/2014

B.moorthy, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Andhra bank, rep. by its manager - Opp.Party(s)

M/S. Sahul Hameed.

26 May 2017

ORDER

                                                            Complaint presented on:  09.01.2014

                                                                Order pronounced on:  26.05.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

FRIDAY THE 26^th DAY OF MAY 2017

 

C.C.NO.15/2014

 

 

B.Moorthy,

S/o.C.P.Bashyam,

Old No:30A, New No:30/A7,

Villivakkam, Thiruvika Main Road,

Chennai – 600 049.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

 

Andhara Bank,

Rep. by its Manager,

Annanagar Branch,

170, 2^nd Avenue,

Chennai – 40.

.....Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                 : 22.01.2014

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s.S.Shahul Hameed &

                                                                 L.F.Shika

Counsel for    Opposite Party                   : M/s.M.Bala Murugan, M.Arumugam

                                                                 V.Vijiyalakshmi

 

 

         

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

This complaint is filed by the complainant for claiming a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony with cost of the Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant had availed a housing loan in October 2005 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. The said loan was to be repaid in 150 EMIs working out to Rs.4,400/- per month. The Complainant had paid 85 installments out of the 150 installments.  While so, the Complainant had availed another loan of Rs.5,00,000/- by mortgaging his house property with the Opposite Party by depositing the title deeds. The Complainant had repaid the entire mortgage loan on 29.08.2013 and requested the Opposite Party to return the original documents. The Opposite Party refused to return the documents unless the Complainant agrees to pay a sum of Rs.6,600/- per month towards the housing loan.

2. The Complainant wanted the original documents to sell the property for his urgent financial needs. The Complainant was to handover the original document to the buyers and he has no money to return his advance money taken from the buyers and to get the documents released from the Opposite Party, by                                  undue influence and   coercion of the Opposite Party. The Complainant had agreed for reschedule the loan by paying revised monthly installments of Rs.6,620/- for 135 months after paying the loan for more than 85 installments. Such act of the Opposite Party caused additional financial burden and mental agony to the Complainant. The act of the Opposite Party by means of unfair methods adopted by them is deficiency in service. Hence the Complainant filed this Complaint for claiming a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony with cost of the Complaint.        

3. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant was sanctioned a Term Loan (Housing Loan) repayable in 228  Monthly installment with floating rate of interest at 8.25% per annum as per sanction letter dated 31.10.2005, which the Complainant acknowledged to the sanction terms and condition and also executed Loan Document on 31.10.2005. As per sanction terms the rate of interest is subject to change from time to time and the loan document namely composite Agreement executed by the Complainant on 31.10.2005.

          4. The policy of the Opposite Party/Bank enhanced rate of interest to 11.50% and the same was communicated to the Complainant by the Opposite Party vide letter dated 27.07.2013. By the said letter, it was informed that EMI Rs.6620/- to be paid as per revision of interest and also followed with another letter dated 03.08.2013 to the Complainant. Accordingly the Complainant had agreed to pay the EMI amount of Rs.6,620/- during the residual period of 135 months and the said letter was signed by the Complainant on 31.08.2013. The other averments made in the Complaint are denied.  Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that the Opposite Party did not commit any deficiency in service as alleged and prays to dismiss the Complaint.

5. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

 

6. POINT NO :1 

          It is an admitted fact that the Complainant availed a housing loan in October 2005 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and agreeing to repay the said loan of Rs.4,400/- per month as EMI and he was paying the EMI for 85 months regularly.

          7. The Complainant contended that while his housing loan is pending, he had availed another loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the Opposite Party by mortgaging his property and deposited the title deeds and the said loan was also repaid fully on 29.08.2013 in order to sell the mortgage property to meet his financial needs and however the Opposite Party refused to release the original documents  that the  Complainant has to reschedule his housing loan to pay  a sum of Rs.6,620/- as EMI for 135 months and unless agree for such a rescheduling,  she will not release the documents and the Complainant has no other go and agreed for such rescheduling to get his documents in order to meet his financial difficulties and therefore the Opposite Party had practiced unfair trade practice in rescheduling the loan and thereby committed deficiency in service and hence prays to order compensation.

          8. The Opposite Party would deny  that it is the Complainant who had executed Ex.B5  letter dated 31.08.2013 for rescheduling the EMI amount as Rs.6,620/- for the residual period of 135 months  and further the Complainant agreed to re-pay the housing loan in 228 EMIs with floating rate interest at 8.25% per annum as per Ex.B1 sanction letter and as per the policy of the bank enhanced rate of interest at 11.50% and same was communicated to the  Complainant vide Ex.A3  letter dated  27.07.2013 and therefore the Opposite Party has not committed any deficiency in service. 

          9. Ex.A1 is the letter of sanction dated 31.10.2005 sanctioning  housing loan a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of the Complainant and  for the said loan floating rate of interest 8.25% is chargeable and repayment period fixed as 228 monthly installments at the rate of Rs.4,350/- per month as EMI. The Complainant also agreeing the about terms of loan sanction letter executed Ex.B3 composite agreement dated 31.10.2005 in favour of the Opposite Party. The Complainant also executed Ex.B4 letter of authorization in favour of the Opposite Party to deduct a sum of Rs.4,450/- from his account till the loan is cleared in full. Therefore, as stated above the Complainant agreed to pay in 228 monthly installments and not as pleaded by him in the Complaint that he would repay the loan in 150 EMIs.

          10. The grievances of the  Complainant is that the Opposite Party made undue influence and coerced him for rescheduling the loan by paying the revised monthly installment of Rs.6,620/- for 135 installments and thereby caused mental strain and mental agony to him and the Opposite Party also committed unfair trade practice and therefore seeks compensation.

          11. The Complainant himself executed Ex.B5 letter to the Opposite Party for rescheduling the remaining housing loan amount and agreed to pay a sum of Rs.6,620/- per month in the residual period of 135 months on or before 5^th of every month.  When the Complainant himself agreed for rescheduling the loan in Ex.B5 letter, the contention of the Complainant that the Opposite Party made undue influence and coerced him is not proved by the Complainant. It is not the case of the Complainant that after rescheduling the housing loan is incorrect and he has been forced to pay any excess amount.  In such circumstances the Complainant himself voluntarily executed  Ex.B5 letter for rescheduling the housing loan the contention of the Complainant that the Opposite Party committed unfair trade practice and deficiency in service has not been proved by the Complainant and therefore we hold that the Opposite Party has not committed any deficiency in service.

12. POINT NO:2

Since the Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 26^th day of May 2017.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 15.07.2013                   Demand Notice from the Bank

Ex.A2 dated 22.07.2013                   Letter from the Complainant to the Bank

Ex.A3 dated 27.07.2013                   Letter from the Bank to the Complainant

Ex.A4 dated 03.08.2013                   Letter from the Bank to the Complainant

Ex.A5 dated 29.08.2013                   Acknowledgement of full payment (Loan A/C.

                                                     No.022730100003230)

 

Ex.A6 dated 24.07.2013                   Statement of Accounts

 

Ex.A7 dated 04.08.2013                   Receipt

 

Ex.A8 dated NIL                     CD

Ex.A9 dated 07.10.2014                   RPAD Letter

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

Ex.B1 dated 31.10.2005                   Letter of Sanction

 

Ex.B2 dated 31.10.2005                   Letter of undertaking given by the Complainant

 

Ex.B3 dated 31.10.2005                   Composite Agreement executed by the                                                

                                                    Complainant

 

Ex.B4 dated 31.10.2005                   Letter of Authorization of transfer Loan

                                                     installment

 

Ex.B5 dater 31.08.2013          Letter of Complainant to pay EMI Rs.6600/-  

                                                    during the residual period

 

Ex.B6 dated 17.09.2013                   Letter from Opposite Party to Banking

                                                     Ombudsman

 

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT