Date of Filing: 29.11.2016
Date of Order: 16.10.2019
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – I, HYDERABAD
P r e s e n t
HON’BLE Sri P.VIJENDER, B.Sc. L.L.B. PRESIDENT.
HON’BLE Smt. D.NIRMALA, B.Com., LLB., MEMBER
ON THIS THE WEDNESDAY THE 16th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019
C.C.No.531 / 2016
Between
- Smt.Daripalli Sarala,
W/o. Late Daripalli Ramesh, Aged about 51 years,
Occ:House Wife,R/o.H.No.1-1-336/83,
Viveknagar, Chikkadapally, Musheerabad,
Hyderabad – 500 020.
2. Daripalli Ranga Chitra Rachana,
D/o. Late Daripalli Ramesh, Aged 25 years,
Occ: Student, R/o. H.No.. 1-1-336/83,
Viveknagar, Chikkadapally, Musheerabad,
Hyderabad – 500 020. ……Complainants
And
- Andhra Bank, Managing Director,
Head Office: Dr. Pattabhi Bhavan, 5-9-11,
Saifabad, Hyderabad – 500 004.
- Andhra Bank, Rep.by its Branch Manager,
Bagh Amberpet,
Hyderabad , Telangana – 500 013. ….Opposite Parties
Counsel for the complainant : Mr.Syed Naimullah Shakeel.
Counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 : Mr. Nelluta Jagan
O R D E R
(By Sri. Sri P. Vijender, B.Sc., LL.B., President on behalf of the bench)
1) This complaint has been preferred under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging that failure to release the title documents of the complainants flat after repayment of entire loan amount despite request and representations by the complainants amounts to deficiency of service. Hence a direction to the opposite parties to release the same and award compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for causing mental agony, hardship by not releasing the same for all these years and to award further sum of Rs.20,000/- towards costs of this complaint.
2) The complaint averments in brief are that :
Late D.Ramesh was husband of the first complainant and second complainant is their daughter. Late Ramesh availed the housing loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from the opposite parties for the purchase of a flat from M/s. R.R.Associates .. On 5.9.2002 opposite parties issued loan sanctioned letter and as per the terms of it the loan amounts was to be repaid in 180 equated monthly installments of Rs.2,300/- each. The first complainant is the co-applicant for the loan availed by her husband late Ramesh and while receiving the loan application the opposite party have collected passport size photographs of late Ramesh and the first complainant as co-applicant.
After availment of the loan, late Ramesh regularly paid EMIs and he died on 20.2.2009 leaving the both the complainants as his surviving legal heirs and successors to his estate. After the death of late Ramesh the first complainant paid the EMIs regularly and finally approached the opposite party No.2 to find out the outstanding amount for the closurer of the loan account. She was informed by opposite party No.2 that outstanding amount as Rs.63,357/- and same was paid by her on 9.6.2010 and made request to release the title documents of the flat collected as a security for the repayment of the loan amount. The first complainant visited the opposite party No.2 bank for several times with a request to release the title documents and issue loan clearance certificate. She also submitted written letters to that effect but there was no use. On 6.1.2016 the first complainant submitted affidavit stating that herself and 2nd complainant are the only legal heirs of late D.Ramesh and same was got attested from XV Spl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Secundrabad. Thereafter also she wrote number of letters and made telephone calls to opposite party No.2 bank for release of the title documents of the property.
In the month of September, 2016 opposite party No.2 directed the first complainant to obtain succession certificate for release of the documents and issuance of loan clearance certificate. The first complainant explained to opposite party No.2 bank that she is co-applicant in the loan application and both the opposite parties have collected her identity card and photographs were affixed on the loan application. Hence demand of succession certificate even after deposit of entire loan amount is arbitrary.
The opposite parties after the death of late Ramesh received EMIs and balance payment of Rs.63,357/- from the complainant’s. But deliberately refusing to release title documents of the property and it amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. Left with no alternative the complainants have got issued a legal notice to the opposite parties on 3.11.2016 for release of the title deeds of the flat and opposite party No.2 having acknowledged it neither replied nor released the documents. Hence the present complaint for the reliefs stated above.
3) The written version filed by Opposite party No.2 is adopted by opposite party No.1. In the written version the opposite parties admitted sanction of housing loan of Rs.2,00,000/- to late T.Ramesh for the purchase of a flat and keeping of the flat title deeds as a security as mortgage but denied the other allegations in the complaint. The stand of the opposite parties in the written version is that the first complainant is not a co-borrower of the housing loan sanctioned in the name of late D.Ramesh by opposite party No.2 bank. The term loan agreement dt. 9.9.2002 was signed and executed by late Ramesh and one D.Narsisng Rao stood as guarantor to the said housing loan and its title deeds are with the bank. There is no privity of contract between the first complainant and the opposite parties as such. Without following the mandatory the fulfilment of clarity in the legal heir identification release of secured documents is not possible. On receipt of letter dated 19.10.2016 from the first complainant with a request to release the documents deposited with the bank in connection with the housing loan of her husband, she was asked to submit claim form along with succession certificate from Court or a legal heir certificate from a competent authority or two third party affidavits along with ID and address proofs for release of title deeds to her. Opposite party No.2 bank had given claim form to the first complainant advising her to file it and submit with requisite information as stipulated by Reserve Bank of India. The complainant instead of submitting the claim form with details got issued legal notice on 3.11.2016. Opposite party No.2 bank called the counsel of complainants for settling the claim in accordance with the bank procedure as stipulated by RBI circulars . But the complainants without fulfilling the legal formalities have filed the present complaint.
The opposite parties did not deliver the title deeds despite payment of entire loan amount because of lack of clarity for the legal heir status of the complainants as same is mandatory as per RBI circulars. The opposite party bank is the custodian of public money and it would not release the mortgaged documents without legal proof of their heir ship to the property of late D.Ramesh. There was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party banks to the complainants. Hence the complainants are not entitled for any of the reliefs and complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4) In the enquiry the first complainant got filed her evidence affidavit reiterating the material facts of the complaint and got exhibited 17 documents in support of the allegations made in the complaint. For the opposite parties there is no evidence and either oral or documentary.
5) On a consideration of the material brought on the record the following points have emerged for consideration :-
1. Whether the complainants have made out a case of deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainants are entitled for the reliefs prayed for in the complaint?
3. To what relief?
6) Point No.1: The availment of housing loan of Rs.2,00,000/- by late Ramesh, husband of the first complainant and father of the second complainant and deposit of the title deeds of the flat as security for loan and payment of EMI installments by late Ramesh during his life are not in dispute. The opposite party in the written version did not deny the complainants version of payment of EMIs by them after the death of Ramesh and in fact lump sum payment of Rs.63,357/- on 9.6.2010 by the complainant for closure of the housing loan account also not denied by the opposite party.
The case of the complainants is the first complainant is a co-applicant for the loan availed by late Ramesh and at the time of submission of loan application the opposite party bank have collected her photograph and ID and address proofs. As such they are aware that she is the wife of late Ramesh the Co-lonee and payment of installments by her after the death of her husband. Hence asking her for succession certificate obtain from Court or legal heir certificate from the competent authority is un called for on the part of opposite party banks. Opposite parties in the written version have categorically stated that the first complainant is not a co-applicant with late D.Ramesh for the housing loan and it further stated that one Narsing Rao is the guarantor for due payment of the loan by late D.Ramesh. The complainant also have filed Xerox copy of application submitted for housing loan containing the photoghrahs of late D.Ramesh and this application shows the signature of the first complainant was also obtained as a co-applicant and signature of Narsing Rao was obtained as a borrower. This copy of loan application filed is marked as Exhibit A1. The complainants have filed the Xerox copies of voucher evidencing payment of EMIs to the opposite party payment for due payment of loan availed by the late Ramesh . They also filed the Xerox copy of invoice evidencing payment of Rs.63,357/- by the complainant towards clearance of the entire housing loan account of late Ramesh, which is not disputed by the opposite parties. The complainant have addressed letter in Exhibit A14 on 14.9.2012 to opposite party No.2 bank requesting to release the title deeds of the property. Exhibit A15 is the legal heir certificate on a non-judicial stamp paper of Rs.20/- denomination stating that the complainants alone are the legal heirs of late D.Ramesh and this certificate is notarized as well as attested by XV Spl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad. Exhibit A17 is the office copy of letter by the complainant to the opposite party No.2 bank for release of the title deeds. Complainant also submitted house hold card and Aadhar cards which evidences that the first complainant is wife of late D.Ramesh and the second complainant is their daughter. The document in Exhibit A1 loan application for sanction of housing loan contained the signature of the first complainant as co-applicant and it is sufficient for the opposite parties to release the loan documents to her after repayment of entire loan amount by her. Legal heir certificate got prepared on a non-judicial stamp paper is notarized and also attested by XV Spl. Metropolitan Magistrate, and opposite party banks ought to have satisfied with this document for release the title deeds of the property. The opposite party banks have not denied truth or otherwise the Exhibit A1 application which shows the first complainant as a co-applicant with late D.Ramesh and this document is sufficient for the opposite parties to recognize her as one of the legal heir of late D.Ramesh.
Opposite parties have referred the RBI guidelines or regulations prescribing certain procedure for release of title deeds after the closure of the loan account to the legal heirs in case of death of lonee but the copies of said guidelines or circulars are not placed on record. The totality of the facts brought on the record has clinchingly proved that the opposite parties despite knowing facts the first complainant is the wife of late D.Ramesh and having received the legal heir certificate prepared on non-judicial stamp paper notarized and also attested by XV Spl. Metropolitan Magistrate, ought to have released the title deeds of the property, instead of insisting the complainants to produce succession certificate obtained from a Court or legal heir certificate from a competent authority. This action of opposite party in insisting to produce succession certificate for release of the title deeds amounts to deficiency of service . Accordingly the point is answered in favour of the complainant.
7) Point No.2:- The findings of this Forum are that the opposite parties despite the receiving the amounts from the first complainant for the closure of loan account of late D.Ramesh and dispite producing sufficient record to prove that the complainants are the sole legal heirs of the late Ramesh have not release the documents and thereby caused deficiency of service . Hence complainants are entitled for the direction to release the said documents and also for payment of compensation. Accordingly the point is answered in favour of the complainant.
8) PointNo.3:- In the result the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite parties:
1. To release and deliver the title deeds of the flat for which sanctioned housing loan to late D.Ramesh :
2. To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and inconvenience by not releasing the said title deeds.
3. To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards costs of this complaint.
Time granted for compliance is thirty days from service of this order.
Dictated to steno transcribed and typed by her and pronounced by us on this the 16th day of October, 2019.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED
NIL
Exhibits filed on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A1 - Copy of application form dt.5.9.2002
Ex.A2 – Copy of .cheque No.228195 for Rs.2,00,000/-
Ex.A3 to A9 – Copy of Deposit slips for Rs.10,000/-,Rs.2,500/- Rs.2,500/-, Rs. 2,500/- Rs.10,200/-, Rs.2.,500, and Rs.2500/-
Ex.A10 – Copy of deposit through cheque dt.9.6.2010 for Rs.63,357/-
Ex.A11 – Copy of interest certificate on amount of Rs.11,405/-
Ex.A12 – Copy of statement of account
Ex.A13 – Copy of death certificate dt.22.11.2009
Ex.A14 – Letters to opposite party
Ex.A15 – Copy of legal heir certificate
Ex.A16 – Copy of certified copy of sale deed
Ex.A17 – Requisition letter for release of house property
Exhibits filed on behalf of the Opposite parties:
Nil
MEMBER PRESIDENT
