Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/59/2021

M.P.Mohandass - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chief Revenue Officer,Chennai Central Co-operative Bank Ltd, - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.M.Danabal

28 Feb 2023

ORDER

 

Complaint presented on  :14.12.2020

Date of disposal               :28.02.2023

         

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

PRESENT : THIRU. G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.,                       :PRESIDENT

            TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN, M.E.,                             : MEMBER-I  

                                           

C.C. No.59/2021

DATED THIS TUESDAY THE 28^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023

M.P.Mohandass,

No.29/3, 2^nd street Extn.,

Parameshwari nagar,

Adyar,

Chennai-600 020.

                                                                                                  .. Complainant.                                                                          ..Vs..

1. General Manager,

Chennai Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.,

No.215, Prakasam Salai,

Chennai-600 108.

 

2. Chief Revenue Officer,

Chennai Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.,

No.215, Prakasam Salai,

Chennai-600 108.

 

3. Asst.General Manager,

Chennai Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.,

No.215, Prakasam Salai,

Chennai-600 108.

 

4. Manager(Finance),

Chennai Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.,

No.215, Prakasam Salai,

Chennai-600 108.                                                                            ..   Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the complainant                       : M/s.M.Danabal.

Counsel for opposite parties 1 to 4             : M/s.P.Anbarasan and 3 others.

ORDER

THIRU. G.VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.        : PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 prays to direct the opposite parties to pay damages with compensation of Rs.50000/- each for unnecessary delay and their attitude against the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.50000/- each to the complainant for the mental agony against the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.20000/- as cost.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant submitted that he is having Savings Bank Account with Chennai Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Adyar Branch from 1980 and maintain his account till date. In the year 1998, the Chennai Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd was sanctioned the mortgage loan of Rs.1,00,000/- and the same was discharged by the complainant without any default. Followed the abovesaid loan, the Branch Manager recommended another loan in the year 2003 and also in 2011. The abovesaid loans are discharged by the complainant before the period of the EMI. The complainant submits that the last loan period was completed in the year 2016 and however the bank official did not arranged to cancel the mortgage deed. After repeated mortgage request by the complainant, the mortgage deed was cancelled and the receipt only issued on 9-2-2019 with enormous delay. The complainant submits that the Central Co-operative Bank had mobilized and introduced to the public under "Loan Mela" for ready loan with easy approachment without any official "consideration" and third party intervention. Though the complainant is a regular customer and also discharged the abovesaid loans very prompt and thereby the official requested the complainant to opt for further loan. The loan application was issued to the complainant in May, 2019 and thereby seeking the fresh mortgage loan of Rs.10,00,000/- from the bank. The said application had been handed over to head office at Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd at Prakasam Salai, Chennai-600 108 with Loan processing payment and original documents by the complainant to Mr. S. Sampath Asst General Manager dated 7-08-2019.The complainant submits that after repeated request, Mr. G. Veeramani Manager (Finance) the bank informed that the loan process under legal opinion from the bank lawyer and verification of Cibil are in good. Thereafter the superior official of the bank,Mr.S.Sampath and G.Veeramani the opposite party 3 and 4 are visited the property site under mortgage only on 11-01-2020. Whereas the legal opinion got from the bank's lawyer as early in September, 2019. Thereafter there is no progress for the loan or reject the loan application and return the documents to the complainant. The property under the mortgage is a valuable property more than 15 fold of the loan amount. The complainant submits that on   05-02-2020, enquired about the loan process. The first opposite party gave false promise that the loan documents is scrutinizing by the Chief Revenue officer, the 2nd opposite party herein by way of through checking in Cibil and after the verification, the loan will be granted in a week and however there is no progress for the loan and put the complainant in a strange position. Finally the complainant have to decided to get the original documents from the bank. On 18-02-2020, gave a letter and requested to return of the original documents now pending with the opposite parties. However, there is no intention to return the original documents to the complainant. Further issued a legal notice to opposite parties on 21.02.2020 for raising the non performance of the opposite parties acts.  The complainant submitted that the 2^nd opposite party sent a letter dated 25.02.2020 informed that the loan documents is ready to return and collect the same. Following the letter and another letter dated 28-02-2020, informed that the sale deed dated 22-01-1993 by the Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd has prohibit the leased out the property fully are partially and hence the lease agreement entered with third party is not valid and hence cancel the lease agreement with third party and report to the same to the bank for further loan process. It is submitted that on 03-03-2020, the complainant sent a letter to the bank and informed that the lease agreement entered with third party was only a business facilitate in the premises of mortgage and also the said lease deed was cancelled due to non performance of the contract and the same was already informed to the 3^rd and 4^th  opposite parties in advance. Hence prayed that claiming damages of Rs.50000/- and also return original documents and further according to the complainant the opposite party treating the complainant as  not a genuine person and also a defaulter and caused unnecessary delay in processing the loan application and therefore alleged deficiency in service on their part.

2.WRITTEN VERSION FILED BY THE  OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

The opposite parties denied the averments and allegations mentioned in the complainant as false and frivolous except those that are specifically admitted and put the complainant to strict proof of the same. The opposite parties submitted that as per Sec. 90 of TN Cooperative Societies Act any dispute has to referred to arbitration and further contended that since the purpose of loan is for repair and renovation of the shed for the development of commercial activity the complainant will not come under the definition of Consumer and further contended that the property to be mortgaged was obtained by the complainant in an allotment in Guindy Industrial Estate from Tamil Nadu Small Industries development Corporation Limited Chennai on 22.01.1993 and in the sale deed there is a Clause in para.2(ii) that the purchaser shall not lease out the property without the consent of the vendor and the property should used for running industry alone and as such the complainant being an advocate is barred from doing any trade without the approval of the Bar council and hence the opposite party requested the complainant to get necessary approval from corporation in respect of lease of the property mortgaged or to cancel existing lease and report the same to the opposite party to facilitate  sanctioning of loan but the complainant was taking on time and hence the loan process could not be completed only due to the fault of the complainant and there was no negligence or delay on the part of the opposite party and further contended that the complainant simply replied belatedly that the lessee had been vacated without producing any documentary evidence and hence the bank requested him to provide additional income proof for which he has submitted three rental agreement in respect of his residential house which were apparently found to be documents which were created purposely for borrowing loan and not genuine documents and hence the bank could not sanction huge loan of Rs.10/- lakhs without adequate repaying capacity and informed the complainant to receive back the documents on 25.02.2020 , but the complainant delayed the matter and at last to receive the documents only in December 2020 and therefore alleged that there is no deficiency in service on their part.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?

2. Whether the opposite parties caused any deficiency in service as alleged in the complaint?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed in the complaint.

If, so to what extent?

Complainant had filed proof affidavit, written argument and documents Ex.A1 to A11 were marked on the complainant side.  The Opposite party was filed proof affidavit and no documents were marked on his side. 

4. Point No.1 and 2:

          The complainant was having account with the opposite party bank from 1980 onwards and he is a incometax assesse and a practicing advocate and have availed two loans with the opposite party bank in the year 2003 and 2011 which was duly discharged by him in the year 2016 but the mortgage deed was cancelled and receipt issued only on 09.02.2019 with enormous delay and further the complainant applied for the third fresh mortgage loan for Rs.10/- lakhs for which a loan application was submitted to the opposite party in May 2019 and after repeated request the bank officials which were mentioned as opposite parties 2 to 4 visited the property on 11.01.2020 and legal opinion was obtained by the bank and his CIBIL score was verified but there was no progress in the sanctioning of loan and hence dissatisfied with the conduct of the opposite party the complainant requested to return the original documents on 18.02.2020 and finally issued legal notice to the opposite party on 21.02.2020 claiming damages of Rs.50000/- and also return original documents and further according to the complainant the opposite party treating the complainant as  not a genuine person and also a defaulter and caused unnecessary delay in processing the loan application and therefore alleged deficiency in service on their part.

5.  But the opposite parties contended that as per Sec. 90 of TN Cooperative Societies Act any dispute has to referred to arbitration and further contended that since the purpose of loan is for repair and renovation of the shed for the development of commercial activity the complainant will not come under the definition of Consumer and further contended that the property to be mortgaged was obtained by the complainant in an allotment in Guindy Industrial Estate from Tamil Nadu Small Industries development Corporation Limited Chennai on 22.01.1993 and in the sale deed there is a Clause in para.2(ii) that the purchaser shall not lease out the property without the consent of the vendor and the property should used for running industry alone and as such the complainant being an advocate is barred from doing any trade without the approval of the Bar council and hence the opposite party requested the complainant to get necessary approval from corporation in respect of lease of the property mortgaged or to cancel existing lease and report the same to the opposite party to facilitate  sanctioning of loan but the complainant was taking on time and hence the loan process could not be completed only due to the fault of the complainant and there was no negligence or delay on the part of the opposite party and further contended that the complainant simply replied belatedly that the lessee had been vacated without producing any documentary evidence and hence the bank requested him to provide additional income proof for which he has submitted three rental agreement in respect of his residential house which were apparently found to be documents which were created purposely for borrowing loan and not genuine documents and hence the bank could not sanction huge loan of Rs.10/- lakhs without adequate repaying capacity and informed the complainant to receive back the documents on 25.02.2020  which is marked as Ex.A7 but the complainant delayed the matter and at last received the documents only in December 2020 and therefore alleged that there is no deficiency in service on their part.

6.  Ex.A1 is the sale deed in favour of complainant dated 22.01.1993 by which a plot in the Guindy Industrial Estate was allotted and purchased by the complainant which is meant for industrial use and as per Clause 2(ii) of Ex.A1 the purchaser shall not lease out the property without prior consent of vendor and the property should be used only for running industry Ex.A2 and A3 are simple mortgage and loan receipt by the opposite party in respect of previous discharged loan borrowed by the complainant as per the decisions of NCDRC even though there is arbitration clause it does not bar the complainant from approaching the Consumer Commission for obtaining suitable relief. Further there is no documentary proof for the purpose of loan which is alleged to be for the development of commercial activity as alleged by the opposite party and admittedly since the complainant is a customer of the opposite party bank the complainant will come under the definition of Consumer and the contention of the opposite party to the contrary is found to be incorrect and not acceptable. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

7. It is found from Ex.A4 the complainant has submitted seven original documents for borrowing loan to the opposite party on 16.09.2019 under Ex.A5 the complainant requested the opposite party to return the original document since the loan process was lengthy. Ex.A6 is legal notice issued by the complainant  claiming damages and return of documents.  It is found from Ex.A7 that within a week the opposite party sent a letter to the complainant to come to the bank and receive original documents on any working date but it seems that the complainant has not approached the opposite party immediately and it is found from Ex.A8 that the bank sent a letter to cancel the alleged lease and report the same and by letter dated 03.03.2020 which is marked as Ex.A10 the complainant  informed the bank that he has cancelled the lease but has not produced any documentary proof for the same but on the otherhand  he submitted three rental agreements along with undertaking affidavit to prove his rental income and on suspicion the bank officials also seems to have inspected the property rented out by the complainant and found that the complainant is not having sufficient income to repay the loan and hence it is found that the loan was not sanctioned by the opposite party which is only due to the non submission of the documents which were required by the bank for processing the loan and the loan process could not be completed only due to the delay committed by the complainant in not producing the documents as required by the opposite party bank but the complainant has approached this commission by suppressing material fact and by falsely alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party which is not proved by the complainant.  The complainant relied upon a decision reported in NCDRC Doson  Chemicals Pvt Ltd Vs United bank of India & Anr dated 09.12.2002 F.A.No.88 of 2000 and Civil Appeal No.3526/2016 before SC in Vikrant Singh Malik and others vs Supertech Limited and others dated 24.08.2020 and the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case.  It is found that the opposite parties have no personnal animosity with the complainant and he was asked by the opposite party by Ex.A8 in February 2020 itself to collect back the documents but the complainant prolonged the matter till December 2020 to get back the documents and filed this complaint on 14.12.2020 by suppressing many material facts and hence it is found that there is no wilful delay committed or deficiency in service committed by the opposite party in respect of loan process as alleged in the complaint. Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

 

 

8. POINT NO.3:-

Based on findings  given to Point No.1 and 2 there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and hence the complainant is not entitled for the damages as claimed in the complaint. Point No.3 is answered accordingly.

         In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.  

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 28^th day of February 2023.

 

MEMBER  I                                                                      PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1	22.01.1993	Sale deed of mortgage property.
Ex.A2	26.12.2011	Deed of simple mortgage.
Ex.A3	09.02.2019	Loan receipt by opposite party bank.
Ex.A4	16.09.2019	Original documents received by the opposite parties.
Ex.A5	18.02.2020	Letter from complainant to the 1st opposite party.
Ex.A6	21.02.2020	Legal notice to the opposite parties.
Ex.A7	25.02.2020	Letter from 2nd opposite party.
Ex.A8	28.02.2020	Letter from the bank to the complainant.
Ex.A9	29.02.2020	Reply notice by the opposite parties.
Ex.A10	03.03.2020	Letter from complainant to 1st opposite party.
Ex.A11	07.03.2020	Lease agreement and under taking affidavit of the complainant.

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:

NIL

MEMBER  I                                                                               PRESIDENT