Delhi

StateCommission

CC/1030/2018

MRS. PRIYANKA DUBEY & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

BANK OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

SYED ASIF IQBAL

06 Sep 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments : 06.09.2018

Date of Decision :12.09.2018

COMPLAINT NO.1030/2018

1. Priyanka Dubey,

W/o. Mr. Suresh Kumar                                                       …..Complainant No.1

 

2. Mr. Suresh Kumar,

S/o. Late Mr. M.G. Sadanandan,

 

Both Residents of F-801, Block-B,

VXL Easter Gates, Sector-4 C,

Vasundhara, Ghaziabad-201012.                                                    …..Complainant No.2

 

Versus

 

1. Bank of Maharashtra,

Chairman cum Managing Director,

Head Office Lokmangal,

1501, Shivajinagar, Pune-411005                                              …..Opposite Party no.1

 

2. Zonal Manager,

Bank of Maharashtra,

NBCC Tower, 3^rd Floor,

Bhikaji Cama Place,

New Delhi.                                                          ......Opposite Party no.2

 

CORAM

Hon’ble Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

Hon’ble Sh. Anil Srivastava, Member

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                               Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                        Yes/No

Shri O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

JUDGEMENT

 

1. The present complaint at the stage of admission is being disposed of on the short ground whether complainants can be allowed to pursue their remedy in piece meal.
2. The complainants entered into an agreement to purchase a flat no.FA-01 in Block B, VXL, Eastern Gate, Sector-4C, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad, UP. from M/s. VXL Realtors Pvt. Ltd. The price was negotiated at Rs.43.43 lakhs. The complainant had Rs.7 lakhs, rest of the amount was to be arranged from bank/ financial  institution in the form of home loan. The builder asked the complainant that they would arrange home loan. The complainants were informed by builder that project was pre-approved by Axis Bank, LIC Housing Finance, ING Vasya Bank and was in the process of getting approval from Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd. The complainant paid Rs.1 lakhs by cheque dated 04.03.12.
3. Initial loan was sanctioned by Tata Capital for Rs.36 lakhs. Same was not disbursed in favour of the complainant on account of builder defaulter and non compliance of the condonation of submitting certain requisite documents by builder.
4. The complainant decided to withdraw their application from builder. Builder promised to get home loan arranged from LIC Housing Finance Ltd. LIC Housing Finance Ltd also refused to sanction and disburse home loan on account of reasons, defaults and non compliance attributable to builder. Complainant expressed their desire to withdraw application and demanded refund.
5. The builder prevailed upon the complainants to apply  loan from Ops. OP released demand draft of Rs.35,75,000/- dated 27.09.12 in favour of builder.
6. The complainants approached builder for physical possession of the flat who issued interim possession letter titled as “interior decoration” letter on a plain paper. The complainant applied for registration of documents which was to be done by March, 2003.
7. It was learnt that builder had illegally constructed 176 flats whereas as per original sanctioned plan, only 87 flat was to be constructed. The same was subsequently revised and approved for 109 flats.
8. It came to the knowledge of complainants that employees of bank and financial institutions colluded with the builder and got flats approved, thereafter multiple loans were created in the name of different customers for the same flats. The said issues would have been revealed, disclosed and unearthed if proper due diligence was carried out by the OPs.
9. In para 42 of the complaint it is mentioned that on account of severe deficiency of service on the part of the builder, the complainants alongwith several other similarly placed consumers have already filed a consumer complaint no.1895/16 titled as  Sarita C. Singh & others vs. VXL Realtors Pvt. Ltd & Anr. which is pending for adjudication before National Commission. This complaint is for directing OPs to pay Rs.10 lakhs for concealing information or giving misleading information, Rs.10 lakhs for collision with builder to defraud the public, Rs.18.84 lakhs for EMIs paid by the complainant, interest @24% per annum on the EMIs, Rs.10 lakhs (Rs.5 lakhs in words towards non service and harassing to the customer). It has also been prayed that action may be taken for misrepresentation of the facts by the bank and public officials under Section 409 IPC. Compensation of Rs.10 lakh has also been claimed. Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Prevents multiplicity of litigation and bar the relief which could have been claimed in the previous litigation.
10. The complaint runs into 59 pages. It contains several allegations of fraud, misappropriation which can not be adjudicated in summary proceedings under Consumer Protection Act. Relief for action under Section 409 IPC has been claimed which is within the exclusive domain of criminal courts.
11. The complaint is dismissed in limine.
12. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
13. File be consigned to record room.

 

 

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                           (O.P. GUPTA)                                  

  MEMBER                                               MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

•