West Bengal

Darjeeling

CC/5/2022

Smt. Babita Lokhotia - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda - Opp.Party(s)

30 May 2024

ORDER

Ld. Advocate for the Complainant:-  Ms. Prena Pradhan &  Tashi Lama Sherpa

 Ld. Advocate for the O.Ps:-  Shri P.K. Sharma, Ning Doma Tamang & Ritika Sharma.              

F I N A L    O R D E R

Dated:- 30.05.2024

      An application has been filed U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the Complainants to the effect that both the Complainants, namely 1. Smt. Babita Lakhotia and her husband 2. Shri. Bijay Kumar Lakhotia had applied for getting a home loan from the O.P bank for Rs.25,00,000/ ( Rupees Twenty Five Lakh Only) for purchasing a flat and the O.P Bank had sanctioned the loan to the Complainants on 22.03.2018 and started deducting the E.M.I @ Rs. 22,214/( Rupees Twenty Two Thousand Two Hundred and Fourteen only) since April, 2018, prior to disbursing the loan amount. The flat in question could not be registered as it was situated on a lease hold land and ultimately the Complainants had requested the O.P Bank to cancel the Loan amount granted in their favour, but the O.P Bank did not stop deducting the E.M.I from the Savings Bank Account of the Complainants and as such the Complainants filed this case against the O.P Bank praying for refund of the entire E.M.Is along with interest and further prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/  ( Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) for mental pain, sufferings, harassments etc. and for cost of the proceedings.

      The sum and substance of the case of the complainants is that the Complainants had applied for a home Loan of Rs. 25,00,000/- ( Rupees Twenty Five Lakh only) for the purpose of purchasing a Residential Flat situated at N.C Goenka Road, Darjeeling from the Opposite Party  Bank and the loan of Rs. 25,00,000/-( Rupees Twenty Five Lakh only) was sanctioned to the complainants  subject to the terms of the  sanction letter, dated 22.03.2018 and in terms of the said sanction letter, dated 22.03.2018 the Complainants were to pay EMI of Rs. 22,214/- ( Rupees Twenty Two thousand Two Hundred and the Fourteen only) for a total period of 228 months.

 

      It is further stated by the Complainants that on being assured of the sanction from the O.P Bank, the Complainants deposited the total sum required for registration to the State Bank of India , Darjeeling Branch for execution and registration of the flat in question, but the Complainants later came to the knowledge that registration of all the lease hold premises under Darjeeling Municipality had been put on hold by the District Sub-Registry Office, Darjeeling and as such the residential flat premises proposed to be purchased by the complainants was also stalled as it was constructed on a leasehold premises.

It is further stated by the Complainants that after sanctioning of the loan amount of Rs 25,00,000/- ( Rupees Twenty Five Lakh Only) vide letter, dated 22.03.2018, the O.P Bank started deducting the EMI, amounting to Rs. 22,214/- ( Rupees Twenty Two Thousand Two Hundred and Fourteen only ) from the Saving Account of the Complainants from the month of April, 2018 but no cheque / Draft of Rs. 25,00000/- ( Rupees Twenty Five Lakh only) was neither handed over to the Complainants nor to the vendor of the premises. The Complainants were informed that the cheque amount of Rs 25,00,000/- ( Rupees Twenty Five Lakh only) would be issued once the original Title Deed was submitted by them to the O.P Bank, but the O.P Bank had already started deducting E.M.I from the complainant’s account without the disbursement of the loan amount.

It is further stated by the Complainants that the Complainants on coming to know about the blocking of the registration of the flat in question by the Registering Department decided not to take the loan further for the time being and therefore, they contacted the O.P Bank but they did not respond to them and continued to deduct the E.M.Is from Complainant’s Account, which have not been refunded till the date of presentation of the case.

       It is further stated by the Complainants that they had sent a letter to the O.P Bank on 27.12.2019 for refund of the entire EMIs deducted from the Complainant’s Saving Account, but the O.P Bank did not pay back the amount. The Complainants had sent a letter dated 27.01.2020 to the O.P Bank for cancellation of the above mentioned loan. In spite of receiving the requesting letter for cancellation of loan, the O.P Bank did not take any steps nor did they pay any heed to the said request letter.

       It is further stated by the Complainants that the complainants on 20.02.2020 again filed a complaint to the office of Ombudsman, Kolkata having its complaint No. 201920005009771, but only an approximate amount of 15% had been credited to the SB account of the Complainants.

      Further, the Complainants had sent two Lawyer notices, dated 16^th November, 2021 and dated 11^th October 2021 respectively to the Opposite Party to refund the entire EMI amount which was deducted from the month of April 2018 from the S.B Account of the Complainants, but after sending both the legal notices they did not pay any heed to nor did the O.P Bank take any initiative to settle the matter as stated above.

      Finding no other alternative, the Complainants filed this case before this District Commission against the O.P Bank for proper redressal and prayed reliefs as under:-

Reliefs Sought For:-

1.  A Direction be given to the O.P to refund the entire E.M.I deducted along with the interest incurred.

2.  A Direction be given to the O.P to pay damages for mental agony and physical suffering of the complainants assessed at Rs. 50,000/- ( Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) and  financial loss due to defects in the product.
1.  A Direction be given to the O.P to pay Cost of the proceeding to be paid by the Opposite Party to the Complainants.
2. Further any other reliefs which the Complainants are entitled as per law and equity be given to the Complainants.

The Complainants filed the following documents in order to prove the case:-

1.   Xerox copy of Sanctioned letter, dated 22.03.2018 issued by the O.P.
2. Xerox copy of the letter addressed to the Manager, Bank of Baroda, Darjeeling dated 27.12.2019.
3. Xerox copy of letter addressed to the Manager, Bank of Baroda, Darjeeling dated 27.01.2020.
4.  Copy of Complaint letter to Ombudsman, dated 20.02.2020.
5. Copy of Lawyer’s Notices dated 11.10.2021 & 16.11.2021 respectively.
6. Copy of loan account statement.

      Notice had been sent to the O.P and it is seen from the case record that the O.P had entered appearance in the case on 15.09.2022 and it is further reflected by the case record that the O.P had filed Written Version along with some documents, as mentioned herein below, on 10.11.2022.

 

      In the Written Version the O.P has denied all the allegations levelled by the Complainants, but the statement made in para- 3 of the Complaint is admitted by the Opposite Party and further the Opposite Party asserted that at the time of sanctioning the loan amount the complainants were told that Opposite Party would disburse the amount in their Account on 26/03/2022 and to that effect complainant No:1 has issued a letter 22/03/2018 wherein she agreed and undertook to repay the loan amount in 228 equated monthly instalments of Rs. 22,214/( Rupees Twenty Two Thousand Two Hundred and Fourteen only), each commencing from 26^th April 2018.

       It is further stated in the Written Version that Opposite Party Bank has no knowledge of statements made in para-4 excepting that the Complainant had paid necessary Stamp Duty for registration through State Bank of India, Darjeeling and the Opposite Party was under the impression that the Complainant would collect the Banker’s cheque drawn in favour of proposed seller at the time of registration of the residential flat.

      The O.P Bank admitted the statement made in para- 5 of the complaint to the extent that after sanctioning of the amount the Opposite Party has started deducting the E.M.I from the saving account of the complainant. The Opposite Party Bank further asserted that the complainant No:1 issued a letter dated 22/03/2018 wherein she agreed and undertook to repay the loan amount in 228 equated monthly instalments of Rs 22,214/- each commencing from 26^th April 2018 and also undertook to create Equitable  Mortgage in favour of the O.P Bank and to deposit original registered Deed of Conveyance and accordingly the Opposite Party Bank has disbursed the amount in her Loan Account bearing  No. 1344600001740 on 26/03/2022( it would be 26.03.2018) and thereafter the bank has prepared three Banker`s Cheque dated  26/03/2018, bearing No. 388163, No.388161 and No. 388164,  Bank of Baroda        ,Darjeeling in favour of Vandana Mimani i.e. proposed seller and asked the complainants to collect the same at the time of registration of Deed of Conveyance of the said Residential Flat and which is usual practice of the O.P bank.

       The O.P Bank further stated in his Written Version that the complaint’s letter is false and fabricated and thus Opposite Party denies the same and put the complainant into strict proof thereof. It is further stated that the Complainants had never contacted and informed the Opposite Party that the Registration Department put on hold the registration and it was only on 27/12/2019 the Complainant brought such fact to the knowledge of the Opposite Party and it was only on 27/01/2020 the Complainant No:2  has requested to cancel the housing loan sanctioned in their favour and on the basis of such letter dated 27/01/2020 the Opposite Party has closed the Loan Account and cancelled the Banker`s Cheque dated 26/03/2018 bearing No.388163 , No 388161 and No 388164 of Bank of Baroda, Darjeeling in favour of Vandana Mimani i.e proposed seller and the husband of the Complainant No:1 was informed accordingly vide letter dated 29/01/2020.

       The Opposite Party further admitted the fact that the complainant has filed one complaint to the Ombudsman and accordingly, the Opposite Party sent their reply dated 20/03/2020 to the Banking Ombudsman and copy was also given to the husband of the Complainant No:1 vide e-mail dated 07.04.2020 and therefore prays for dismissal of the case. 

The O.P Bank has filed the following copy of documents with the Written Version.

1. Statements of A/C of Bijay Lakhotia, being A/C No:- 13440100011120.
2. Statements of A/C of Babita Lakhotia, being A/C No:- 13440600001740.
3. Copy of letter of the Complainants dated 22.03.2018 & 27.12.2019.
4.  Copy of undertaking made by the Complainants for creating equitable mortgage in Bank’s favour.
5. Copy of 3 (Three) Banker’s cheque, bearing No. 388163, 388161 & 388164, all dated 26.03.2018.
6. Copy of letter issued to Bijay Lakhotia by the O.P Bank dated 29.01.2020.
7. Copy of letter issued by the O.P Bank dated 20.03.2020 & abstract of e-mail dated 07.04.2020.
8. Copy of agreement for Sell dated Nil, April,2017.

 

      During hearing the Complainant adduced evidence on 17.02.2023 and on 15.03.2023 the O.P put questionnaire against the evidence of the Complainant. The Complainant filed reply on 19.05.2023. On the contrary, the O.P has adduced evidence (O.P.W) on 18.08.2023 and the Complainant put questionnaire against the evidence of the O.P. The O.P gave reply on 10.10.2023.  Both sides filed B.N.A on 13.12.2023 and the argument was heard from both sides in part on that day and the case was deferred on 06.02.2024 for further argument and on that day argument was heard in full and the case was posted to 14.03.2024 for passing final order. But on 14.03.2024 due to lack of quorum the final order could not be passed and it was posted to 19.04.2024 for passing final order.

      From the Complaint petition, Written Version of the O.P and Evidence of both the parties, the following points have been framed:-

 

1. Are the Complainants Consumers under the O.P bank as per Sec-2(7) of the C.P. Act, 2019?
2. Is the O.P Bank negligent or deficient in providing service to the Complainants?
3. Are the Complainants entitled to get any relief/s as prayed for?

 

DECISION WITH REASONS

      All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity, avoidance of repetition of facts and also for convenience for discussion.

       It is evident from the evidence of the Complainants as well as the O.P that the Complainants had applied for a home Loan of Rs. 25,00,000/- ( Rupees Twenty Five Lakh only) for the purpose of purchasing a Residential Flat situated at N.C Goenka Road, Darjeeling from the Opposite Party Bank and the said loan was sanctioned to the complainants  subject to the terms of the  sanction letter, dated 22.03.2018 and in terms of the said sanction letter, dated 22.03.2018 the Complainants were to pay EMI of Rs. 22,214/- ( Rupees Twenty Two thousand Two Hundred and the Fourteen only) for a total period of 228 months.

       Further, it is seen from the evidence and other materials on record that on being assured of the sanction from the O.P Bank, the Complainants deposited the total sum required for registration to the State Bank of India, Darjeeling Branch for execution and registration of the flat in question, but the      Complainants later came to know that registration of all the lease hold premises under Darjeeling Municipality had been put on hold by the District Sub-Registry Office, Darjeeling and as such the residential flat premises proposed to be purchased by the complainants was also stalled as it was constructed on a leasehold premises.

      Further, it is seen from the evidence and other materials on record that  after sanctioning of the loan amount of Rs 25,00,000/- ( Rupees Twenty Five  Lakh Only)  vide letter, dated 22.03.2018, the O.P Bank started deducting the E.M.I, amounting to Rs. 22,214/- ( Rupees Twenty Two Thousand Two Hundred and Fourteen only ) from the Saving Account of the Complainants from the month of April, 2018 but no cheque / Draft of Rs. 25,00000/- ( Rupees Twenty Five Lakh only) was neither handed over to the Complainants nor to the vendor of the premises. The Complainants were informed that the cheque amount of Rs 25,00,000/ ( Rupees Twenty Five Lakh only) would be issued once the original Title Deed was submitted by them to the O.P Bank, but the O.P Bank had already started deducting E.M.I from the complainant’s account without the disbursement of the loan amount.

      Further, it is seen from the evidence and other materials on record that the Complainants on coming to know about the blocking of the registration of the flat in question by the Registering Department decided not to take the loan further for the time being and therefore, they contacted the O.P Bank but they did not respond to them and continued to deduct the E.M.Is from Complainant’s Account, which have not been refunded till the date of presentation of the case. The Complainants had sent a letter to the O.P Bank on 27.12.2019 for refund of the entire E.M.Is deducted from the Complainant’s Saving Account, but the O.P Bank did not pay back the amount.

      The Complainants had sent a letter dated 27.01.2020 to the O.P Bank for cancellation of the above mentioned loan. In spite of receiving the request letter for cancellation of loan, the O.P Bank did not take any steps nor did they pay any heed to the said request letter. The complainants on 20.02.2020 again filed a complaint to the office of Ombudsman, Kolkata having its complaint No. 201920005009771, but only an approximate amount of 15% had been credited to the SB account of the Complainants. The Complainants had sent two Lawyer notices, dated 16^th November, 2021 and dated 11^th October 2021 respectively to the Opposite Party to refund the entire E.M.I amount which was deducted from the month of April 2018 from the S.B Account of the Complainants, but after sending both the legal notices they did not pay any heed to nor did the O.P Bank take any initiative to settle the matter as stated above.

The Opposite Party admitted the fact that the O.P Bank had sanctioned the loan amount as stated above to the complainants and disbursed the same in their Account on 26/03/2018.

      The O.P Bank further admitted the fact that after sanctioning of the amount the Opposite Party Bank has started deducting the E.M.I from the saving account of the complainant. The Opposite Party Bank further asserted that the complainant No:1 issued a letter dated 22/03/2018 wherein she agreed and undertook to repay the loan amount in 228 equated monthly instalments of Rs 22,214/- each commencing from 26^th April 2018 and also undertook to create Equitable  Mortgage in favour of the O.P Bank and to deposit original registered Deed of Conveyance and accordingly the Opposite Party Bank has disbursed the amount in her Loan Account bearing  No. 1344600001740 on 26.03.2018 and thereafter the bank has prepared three Banker`s Cheque dated  26/03/2018, bearing No. 388163, No.388161 and No. 388164,  Bank of Baroda, Darjeeling in favour of Vandana Mimani, i.e the proposed seller and asked the complainants to collect the same at the time of registration of Deed of Conveyance of the said Residential Flat and which is usual practice of the O.P Bank.

       The O.P Bank on 27/01/2020 as per the request of the Complainant No:2  cancelled the housing loan sanctioned in their favour as the registration of the flat in question could not be done and on the basis of such letter the Opposite Party has closed the Loan Account and cancelled the Banker`s Cheque dated 26/03/2018 bearing No.388163 , No 388161 and No 388164 of Bank of Baroda, Darjeeling in favour of Vandana Mimani i.e proposed seller and it was informed accordingly to the Complainants vide letter dated 29/01/2020.

 

       From the above discussion, we are of the view that the Complainants are Consumers under Section-2(7) of the C.P.Act,2019 under the O.P Bank  and the dispute is a consumer dispute within the meaning of Secton-2(8) of the C.P.Act,2019.

 

       Now, in order to ascertain whether the O.P Bank was negligent or deficient in providing service to the Complainants, we have to delve into the evidence of the parties once again.

       It is seen from the evidence of both the parties that the Complainants had applied for a home Loan of Rs. 25,00,000/- ( Rupees Twenty Five Lakh only) for the purpose of purchasing a Residential Flat situated at N.C Goenka Road, Darjeeling from the Opposite Party Bank and the said loan was sanctioned to the complainants  subject to the terms of the  sanction letter, dated 22.03.2018 and in terms of the said sanction letter, dated 22.03.2018 the Complainants were to pay EMI of Rs. 22,214/- ( Rupees Twenty Two thousand Two Hundred and the Fourteen only) for a total period of 228 months. 

       Further, it is seen from the evidence and other materials on record that on being assured of the sanction from the O.P Bank, the Complainants deposited the total sum required for registration to the State Bank of India, Darjeeling Branch for execution and registration of the flat in question, but the  Complainants later came to know that registration of all the lease hold premises under Darjeeling Municipality had been put on hold by the District Sub-Registry Office, Darjeeling and as such the residential flat premises proposed to be purchased by the complainants was also stalled as it was constructed on a leasehold premises.

       Further, it is seen from the evidence and other materials on record that  after sanctioning of the loan amount of Rs 25,00,000/- ( Rupees Twenty Five  Lakh Only)  vide letter, dated 22.03.2018, the O.P Bank started deducting the E.M.I, amounting to Rs. 22,214/- ( Rupees Twenty Two Thousand Two Hundred and Fourteen only ) from the Saving Account of the Complainants from the month of April, 2018 but no cheque / Draft of Rs. 25,00000/- ( Rupees Twenty Five Lakh only) was neither handed over to the Complainants nor to the vendor of the premises. The Complainants were informed that the cheque amount of Rs 25,00,000/ ( Rupees Twenty Five Lakh only) would be issued once the original Title Deed was submitted by them to the O.P Bank, but the O.P Bank had already started deducting E.M.I from the complainant’s account without the disbursement of the loan amount.

       Further, it is seen from the evidence and other materials on record that the Complainants on coming to know about the blocking of the registration of the flat in question by the Registering Department decided not to take the loan further for the time being and therefore, they contacted the O.P Bank but they        did not respond to them and continued to deduct the E.M.Is from Complainant’s Account, which have not been refunded till the date of presentation of the case. The Complainants had sent a letter to the O.P Bank on 27.12.2019 for refund of the entire E.M.Is deducted from the Complainant’s Saving Account, but the O.P Bank did not pay back the amount.

      The Complainants had sent a letter dated 27.01.2020 to the O.P Bank for cancellation of the above mentioned loan. In spite of receiving the request letter for cancellation of loan, the O.P Bank did not take any steps nor did they pay any heed to the said request letter. The complainants on 20.02.2020 again filed a complaint to the office of Ombudsman, Kolkata having its complaint No. 201920005009771, but only an approximate amount of 15% had been credited to the S.B account of the Complainants.

      During argument of the case this Commission has asked for clarification from both the parties whether the Complainants have received any amount from the O.P bank or not as per the direction of the Ombudsman, as the Complainants in their complaint petition and as well as in their evidence have stated that they received 15% of the amount from the O.P Bank. The Complainants have filed reply to the clarification and they admitted that an amount of Rs.91,685/ ( Rupees  Ninety One Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Five Only) has been credited in the Complainant’s account on 03.02.2020. Further, being asked to clarify the point how many E.M.I’s the Complainants have paid in respect of the said loan account, the Complainants in their reply stated that they have paid 22 ( Twenty Two) instalments, each amounting to Rs. 22,214/( Rupees Twenty Two Thousand Two Hundred Fourteen only).

That means the Complainants have paid a total of Rs. 4,88,708/( Rupees Four Lakh Eighty Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Eight only) to the O.P Bank as total E.M.I and out  of which they have received Rs. 91,685/ ( Rupees  Ninety One Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Five Only) and an amount of  Rs.3,97,023/        ( Rupees Three Lakh Ninety Seven Thousand Twenty Three only) has not been returned by the O.P Bank to the Complainants and such amount of money is still with the hands of the O.P Bank. From the documents adduced by the parties it is confirmed that the Complainants have received the aforesaid amount from the O.P Bank. The O.P bank did not deny of the same.

      The O.P Bank further admitted the fact that after sanctioning of the amount the Opposite Party Bank has started deducting the E.M.I from the saving account of the complainant. The Opposite Party Bank further asserted that the complainant No:1 issued a letter dated 22/03/2018 wherein she agreed and undertook to repay the loan amount in 228 equated monthly instalments of Rs 22,214/- each commencing from 26^th April 2018 and also undertook to create Equitable  Mortgage in favour of the O.P Bank and to deposit original registered Deed of Conveyance and accordingly the Opposite Party Bank has disbursed the amount in her Loan Account bearing  No. 1344600001740 on 26.03.2018 and thereafter the bank has prepared three Banker`s Cheque dated  26/03/2018, bearing No. 388163, No.388161 and No. 388164,  Bank of Baroda, Darjeeling in favour of Vandana Mimani, i.e the proposed seller and asked the complainants to collect the same at the time of registration of Deed of Conveyance of the said Residential Flat and which is usual practice of the O.P Bank.  The O.P Bank on 27/01/2020 as per the request of the Complainant No:2  cancelled the housing loan sanctioned in their favour as the registration of the flat in question could not be done and on the basis of such letter the Opposite       Party has closed the Loan Account and cancelled the Banker`s Cheque dated 26/03/2018 bearing No.388163 , No 388161 and No 388164 of Bank of Baroda, Darjeeling in favour of Vandana Mimani i.e proposed seller and it was informed accordingly to the Complainants vide letter dated 29/01/2020.

 

       But the crux of the matter is that the amount of loan which was sanctioned in favour of the Complainants has retained with the hands of the O.P Bank only. The O.P bank has retained the money in the form of Banker’s cheques with it and asked the Complainants that it would be disbursed only when the Deed of Conveyance of the flat would be deposited to the O.P.  The Complainants could not utilise the money though they were forced to pay the E.M.Is and as per the terms and conditions made with the O.P bank, the Complainants had been paying EMIs and as per the above discussion it is seen that a total 22( Twenty Two) instalments by way of EMIs have been paid by the Complainants unnecessarily, each of Rs. 22,214/ and they have paid a total sum of Rs. 4,88,708/( Rupees Four Lakh Eighty Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Eight only) to the O.P Bank as total E.M.I and out  of which they have received Rs. 91,685/ ( Rupees  Ninety One Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Five Only) only and an amount of  Rs.3,97,023/   ( Rupees Three Lakh Ninety Seven Thousand Twenty Three only) is still with the hands of the O.P Bank. The Complainants were not at fault for non- registration of the flat. Due to policy of the Government, the flat could not be registered. Even the loan amount had not been handed over to the Complainants and they could not utilise the same. Rather, they had to pay the instalments unnecessarily as aforesaid.  The Ombudsman also directed to refund a certain portion of money to the Complainants. The Ombudsman must have considered the fault of the O.P Bank and passed such an order.

      Therefore, in our view the Complainants are entitled to get back the amount paid as EMIs, after deduction of the amount which they have already received from the O.P Bank.  

       Ld. Advocate for the O.P Bank raised the point of limitation and cited some case decisions at the time of argument of the case.  Ld Advocate for the  Complainant has stated that due to Covid Pandemic they could not file the case and furthermore the Hon’ble Supreme Court also took lenient view and extended the period of limitation time to time considering the Covid Pandemic and the Hon’ble N.C.D.R.C also issued practice direction over the subject and he further stated that the Commission should consider the grievances of the Complainants leniently and further Ld. Advocate for the Complainant stated that the O.Ps did not raise any objection in his W/V regarding the point of limitation, except made the formal denial. Even, the O.P bank did not challenge the maintainability point at any stage of the proceeding and raised objection on the point of limitation. Ld. Advocate for the Complainant further submitted that at the fag end of the case the O.P raised such a point which should be overlooked. He further stated that it is the settled principle of law that mere technicalities should be avoided to give substantial justice to the parties.

      We have gone through the entire case record and are of the opinion that the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is a benevolent statute. The principle and object of the Act is to give protection of the interests of consumers and for such our main priority would be to give natural justice to the parties concerned.

      Considering the nature of the case and grievances of the Complainants, we are of the view that lenient view should be taken for deciding the case  and as the Complainants had paid 22( Twenty Two) instalments after sanctioning the house building loan and the O.P Bank did not hand over the same to them and kept the cheques with their custody only with  a condition that the cheques would be disbursed only after depositing the title deed of the flat  of the Complainants but the flat of the complainants could not be registered due to some Governmental policy and the Complainants had no role to play for such and they had been harassed and went on paying the EMIs without any fault on their part, therefore the Complainants are entitled to get back the instalment amount paid to the O.P bank after deducting the amount already received due to the direction of the Ombudsman.

 Here we find some deficiency on the part of the O.P Bank that even after repeated requests the O.P bank did not consider the prayers of the Complainants and retained the money with the Bank only.

       Regarding quantum of compensation, we are of the view that an amount an amount of Rs.10,000/( Rupees Ten Thousand only) is just and proper in order to mitigate the agony, sufferings and harassments suffered by the Complainants.

      As no specific amount has been mentioned for cost of the proceedings, and no evidence has been led on this point, we are refraining ourselves to award any amount on the head of litigation cost.

       Therefore, the Complainants have able to prove their case and they are entitled to get award, but in part.

                                                                                              HENCE ,

 It is ordered that the Consumer Complaint, being C.C- 05 of 2022 is allowed on contest against the O.P, but in part.

 The O.P bank is directed to refund an amount of Rs. Rs.3,97,023/   ( Rupees Three Lakh Ninety Seven Thousand Twenty Three only) to the Complainants in their Savings Bank A/C, which is lying with the O.P bank in the form of  EMIs paid against the house building loan sanctioned in their favour, in terms of the sanction letter, dated 22.03.2018 along with an interest @ 6% p.a, which shall be calculated from the date of respective deposits till the date of realization, within 2(Two)Months from the date of this Order.

Further, the O.P bank is directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/ ( Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the Complainants within the aforesaid period of two months.

 Let free copies be given to the parties concerned as per the provisions of C.P.R,2020.