BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No. 186 of 2016

Date of Instt. 25.04.2016

Date of Decision: 17.05.2017

1. Raj Kumar Kataria Son of Sh. Daulat Ram,

2. Smt. Prem Kataria Wife of Sh. Raj Kumar Kataria,

3. Gaurav Kataria Son of Sh. Raj Kumar Kataria.

(All residents of 66, Sat Nagar, Near Sewa Sadan Road, Jalandhar.)

..........Complainants

Versus

1. Andhra Bank, Bastian Adda Branch, Near Fish Market, Jalandhar through its Branch Manager.

2. Andhra Bank, SCO No.200-201, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh through its Zonal Manager.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh, (President),

Sh. Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh. Ravinder Manuja, Adv Counsel for complainants.

Sh. IS Bhatia, Adv counsel for OP No.1 and 2.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint filed by the complainants, wherein alleged that OP No.1 is a nationalize bank, OP No.2 is the Zonal Manager of the bank, which is the controlling authority of OP No.1. Complainants approached OP No.1 for the grant of Housing Loan and the loan limit to the tune of Rs.35,00,000/- was sanctioned vide letter bearing No.1605/16HL/393/457-S dated 26.11.2009 issued by the OP No.1. As per the terms mentioned in the sanction letter, the loan in question was repayable in 180 equal monthly installments. Rs.33,450/- per month for the Ist year, it will be fixed again depending upon the fixation of rate of interest. The rate of interest was 8% fixed for the first year as per special offer for New Housing Loan period of gestation was 12 months. That complainants had been paying the installments regularly, monthly installment was fixed Rs.33,450/- but complainants many times deposited Rs.50,000/- per month instead of fixed amount of Rs.33,450/-. OP No.1 bank used to receive the excess repayment of monthly installments, but did not give any benefit, rebate to the complainants, the OP No.1 even did not inform to the complainants that no benefit for the excess amount being received by the OP No.1 is being given to the complainants. That OP No.1/bank after the period of one year as stipulated in the sanction letter, without any notice and without taking any consent and even without the knowledge of the complainants changed unilaterally the rate of interest at higher side, thus keeping the complainants in dark, causing wrongful financial loss to the complainants. When this fact that OP No.1/Bank is charging higher rate of interest than prevalent in the other nationalized bank came to the knowledge of complainants, they immediately visited the OP No.1, branch of the bank, to lodge their complaint that OP No.1/bank is charging excessive/exorbitant rate of interest after the gestation period of 12 months and requested for reversal of excess charged amount to their account and requested for the rectification in this regard, receiving to the request of the complainants the branch manager of OP No.1/bank got the signatures of complainants on a request letter, which was got drafted and typed by the branch manager on 28.07.2015. That complainant received a SMS on his mobile registered with the bank that rate of interest has been chanred by the bank from 12.25% to 10% with effect from 16.09.2015 against the facts that it was to be changed from the expiry of the gestation period of 12 months, i.e. 26.11.2010. As per terms of the sanction letter, the rate of interest was to be re-fixed after the expiry of first year, no notice for the re-fixation or change in the rate of interest to be charged from the complainants for the successive years was given and the OPs had been charging exorbitant/excessive rate of interest then the prevalent rate of interest charged by the other Nationalized Bank, for housing loan, during the period under question. Rate of interest is exorbitant/excessive to the tune of 2 ½ % to 3 ½ % per annum. Due to the illegal and unethical practice on the part of the OPs, complainants have been burdened with additional amount which is estimated to the tune of Rs.7,00,000/-, which is required to be refunded /adjusted in the monthly reducing Principal Loan Amount.

2. That complainants approached the OP No.1, manager of the bank to refund/adjust the exorbitant/excessive rate of interest charged from 26.11.2010, without any notice, without taking any consent and even without the knowledge of the complainants, which was charged by the bank unilaterally. The OP No.1, bank manager did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainants and deliberately ignored the repeated requests made to this effect by personally visiting the bank by the complainants. The complainants feeling perturbed at the hands of the Branch Manager/Officials closed the loan account on 20.01.2016 by depositing full and final payment in a single instance to severe the relations with the bank one for all and demanded back the title deed/sale deed and others documents of the property. The complainants gave a request letter for the return of their title deed/documents pertaining to the property against which the loan was availed. The written request was duly received in the bank on 21.01.2016, but the branch manager again flatly refused to hand over the title deed of the property inspite of the full and final payment in the loan account. On the refusal of the branch manager to return the title deed of the property the complainants made a written request addressed to the managing director-cum-CEO of Andhra Bank in order to bring the entire facts in the personal knowledge of the higher authorities with the request to intervene in the matter for the redressal of the grievances of the complainants and to take appropriate action against the delinquent manager for her illegal action of keeping/retaining the sale deed/title deed and other documents of the property of the complainants. Non return of the title deed and other documents, which have been illegally withheld by the OPs have resulted into enormous loss in terms of money and is still causing recurring loss to the business and reputation of the complainants as due to non availability of the funds. The complainants find hard to honour their commitments to make payment in time to various parties with whom they are making business transaction for the last so many years. The act and conduct of the OPs, tantamount to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, which has caused grave financial wrongful loss besides harassment, mental tension and cruelty to the complainants, which gave cause of action to file the present complaint with the prayer that the OPs be directed to return the sale deed/title deed alongwith other document to the complainant and OPs further directed to pay compensation/damages to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/-

3. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties and accordingly OPs filed written reply whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that with a view to avoid reproduction of each and every allegation from the complaint and traversing the same, suffice it to say that contents and allegations of the complaint which are not specifically admitted here in under and which are against the tenor of this reply may be deemed to specifically denied by the OPs. The OPs say that the averments contained in the complaint are not admitted and each and every statement, submission, contention, pleading and averments contained in the complaint, which is contrary to, or inconsistent with, what is stated in this written statement, as if the same were specifically traversed and denied herein and further alleged that the present complaint filed is wholly misconceived, untenable and not maintainable both in law and on facts against the OPs and therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed in limine with costs in favour of the OPs and further averred that the present complaint is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC and is abuse of process of law because the complainant has already filed a similar complaint titled Raj Kumar Kataria and Others Vs. Andhra Bank on the same cause of action and as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed and further stated that the present complaint is liable to be stayed till the decision of earlier filed complaint as mentioned above. On merits, the allegations made in the complaint are categorically denied and further submitted that the complainants were never compelled to deposit the outstanding amount on 20.01.2016 and further it is denied that the full amount has been deposited, since the dispute having been raised by the complainant and the complaint having been filed by the complainants in the Forum, the loan account has not been closed. The loan account can only be closed when there is no direct or indirect liability of the borrower. The relations have not been severed as the dispute is pending. The bank cannot return the sale deed as the loan account has not been closed and the complainants are disputing excess payment. The matter is sub-judice and the documents of title of the mortgaged property can only be returned when the dispute is adjudicated upon and the complaints filed by the complainants are settled. The complainants were apprised of the facts when they visited the bank to demand the documents of title. The request contained in the letter dated 21.01.2016 for return of the title deed was not legally tenable for the reasons mentioned above, therefore, the same was declined. The complainants are not entitled to return the documents of title till the dispute raised by the complainants is resolved and the loan account is formally closed. The account of the complainants is still having debit balance and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant is without merit and same may be dismissed.

4. In order to prove the allegations of the complainants, counsel for the complainants tendered into evidence affidavit of the one complainant Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 and closed the evidence of the complainants.

5. Similarly counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OPA alongwith some documents Ex.OP/1 i.e. Sanctioned Letter dated 26.11.2009 and closed the evidence.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective party and also gone through the case file very minutely.

7. Before imparting with the dispute alleged by the complainant in this complaint, we like to make it clear that in regard to excessive interest, the complainant has already filed a separate complaint bearing No.272 of 2016 and the factum of charging excessive rate of interest have been also incorporated in this complaint but in the prayer clause, the complainant has sought the only relief for seeking direction to the OP to return back the sale deed alongwith other documents as well as pay compensation and litigation expenses.

8. Coming to the dispute in issue in this complaint, the same is only that the complainant alleged that he has already deposited the entire remaining loan amount and this fact has been referred by the learned counsel for the complainant from statement of account which is Ex.C3, wherein on the last page, 'account closed' is scribed and after depositing and closing of the loan account the complainants demanded title deed along with the other documents number of time from the branch manager of OP No.1 but he did not hear to the complainant and ultimately the complainant wrote a letter to the Zonal Manager with a request that a direction be given to the branch manager OP No.1 to return the sale deed because the same is required to the complainant for getting a loan from other bank i.e. Canara Bank, the letter wrote to the OP No.1 for return of the sale deed is Ex.C-4 and further letter wrote to the Managing Director and CEO is Ex.C-5, but the reply of the letter Ex.C5 was given by the CEO, the said reply is on the file is Ex.C-6, wherein the reason for not return of the sale deed and other documents is mentioned that the matter is subjudice as the complainants have already filed a consumer complaint with the allegation that excessive interest has been charged from the complainants. Moreover, the loan account of the complainant is not clear nor it was closed and due to that reason the original sale deed and other documents were not returned and as such there is no deficiency of service on the part of the bank.

9. We considered the submission of learned counsel for the OP as referred in the written statement as well as in the reply Ex.C-6 and find that the complainant has miserably failed to bring on the file any No Due Certificate, issued by the OP bank, where from this Forum can assess that there is no loan amount is due. It is settled principle of law that whenever entire loan amount is returned then the Loanee has to get a No Due Certificate from the bank and on the basis of that No Due Certificate the bank return the original sale deed which was kept against mortgage but in this case, the OP has categorically alleged in the written statement in para No.10 on merit that loan account of the complainant has not been closed and even the account of the complainants is still having debt balance. So, if there is any loan amount is still due then how the OP No.1 can return the sale deed. So, with these observations, we reached to the conclusion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

10. In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant fails. Therefore, the same is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own cost. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

11. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh

17.05.2017 Member President