COMPLAINT FILED: 28.02.2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 09th APRIL 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 508/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANTS 1. Mrs. B. Yashoda,<br /> W/o. Padmanabha C R,<br /> Aged about 55 years.<br /> <br /> <br /> 2. Mr. Padmanabha C R,<br /> S/o. C N Ramanaik,<br /> Aged about 56 years.<br /> <br /> Both are residing at No. 28/1,<br /> “Anusha”, 7th Cross,<br /> 5th Main, S V G Nagar,<br /> Pattegarpalya,<br /> Bangalore – 560 072.<br /> <br /> <br /> Advocate (S.N. Venkatram)<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. The Area Business Head<br /> ICICI Bank Ltd.,<br /> No. 5, R G Chambers, II Floor,<br /> Industrial Layout, 7th Block,<br /> 80 ft. Road, Koramangala,<br /> Bangalore – 560 034.<br /> <br /> <br /> 2. The Branch Credit Manager – Home Loans,<br /> ICICI Bank Ltd.,<br /> No. 5, R G Chambers, II Floor,<br /> Industrial Layout, 7th Block,<br /> 80 ft. Road, Koramangala,<br /> Bangalore – 560 034.<br /> <br /> <br /> 3. The Branch Credit Manager (Operations)-Home Loans,<br /> ICICI Bank Ltd.,<br /> ICICI Towers, Mezzanie Floor,<br /> No. 1, Commissariat Road,<br /> Bangalore – 560 001.<br /> <br /> <br /> 4. The Branch Manager Credit Home Loans,<br /> ICICI Bank Ltd.,<br /> 1st Floor, 5th Main, 5th Cross,<br /> Near Ganapathi Temple,<br /> Malleswaram,<br /> Bangalore – 560 003.<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> Complainant sought for the housing loan from the OP in June 2002. OP sanctioned the said loan on 20.06.2002 to the tune of Rs.9,75,000/- repayable in 120 EMI with interest at the rate of 11% p.a. Complainant deposited the original title deeds and created mortgage. Complainant was regular in making payments of the EMI without any default. Then he sought for the foreclosure of the said loan. After the deliberation complainant was directed to pay Rs.3.92 lakhs towards the outstanding dues. Complainant paid the same on 16.07.2008. OP issued the loan clearance certificate on 23.07.2008, then complainant sought for the return of the original title deeds produced by him. OP went on postponing in returning the said title deeds. Complainant has also sought for the return of the unused postdated cheques which were given to the OP. To his utter shock and surprise OP did not return the original documents and come up with the defence that they are not traceable and misplaced. For want of the said original title deeds complainant is unable to raise the loan from other financial institutions including the Nationalized Banks. Thus he is put to greater hardship and prejudice. Then he caused the legal notice to OP on 25.07.2008. Again there was no response. Under the circumstances complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence they are advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On admission and registration of the complaint, notices were sent to the OP. Though OP was duly served with a notice, remained absent without any sufficient reason or cause. The absence of the OP does not appears to be as bonafide and reasonable, hence OP is placed ex-parte.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed his affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP did not participate in the proceedings. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. It is the case of the complainants that they approached the OP in the month of June 2002 for housing loan. Complainant No.1 is the wife of complainant No.2. OP after verifying the title deeds agreed to sanction the loan on deposit of title deeds, then sanctioned a loan of Rs.9,75,000/- on 20.06.2002 repayable in 120 EMI with 11% p.a. interest. As agreed upon complainants produced all the original title deeds belonging to them with respect to the schedule property. Complainants were regular in repaying the loan without any default. In the month of March 2008 complainant thought of foreclosure of the said loan OP agreed for the same, then it was resolved to collect Rs.3,92,000/- as an entire outstanding dues with respect to the said loan. Complainant paid the same to OP on 16.07.2008. The documents to that effect are produced.<br /> <br /> 5. Further it is contended by the complainant after acceptance of the said amount under foreclosure settlement OP issued loan clearance certificate on 23.07.2008. Then complainants asked the OP to return their original documents along with the post dated blank cheques given by them as security at the time of availment of the said loan. Somehow OP to the reasons best known to it went on postponing to consider their demand and finally OP come up with a untenable defence that original documents are misplaced or lost and are not traceable. Complainants were surprised and shocked to hear the same. In absence of original title deeds complainants are unable to raise any loan from the financial institutions including that of the nationalized banks. <br /> <br /> 6. It is all because of the carelessness and negligence on the part of the OP, they are unable to alienate the property to the 3rd party the intending purchasers, thus caused the legal notice on 25.07.2008. The copy of the legal notice is produced. The evidence of the complainant which finds full corroboration with the contents of the undisputed documents appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard their sworn testimony. The non-appearance of the OP evenafter the due service of the notice leads us to draw an inference that OP admits the allegations made by the complainant. When that is so, complainants for no fault of theirs are made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss.<br /> <br /> 7. Of course complainants have prayed for compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- and other miscellaneous expenses of Rs.14,000/- and odd, the claim appears to be exorbitant and high. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view the justice will be met by directing the OP to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- with a direction to trace the said title deeds as early as possible and return them to the complainants without fail. With these reasons we proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- along with a litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. It is further ordered OP to trace out the said original title deeds produced by the complainant as early as possible and return them to the complainants. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication. <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 09th day of April 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> p.n.g. <br />