Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

36/2011

R.Shanmugham - Complainant(s)

Versus

Citi Bank - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.A.P.Sathyamurthy

05 May 2016

ORDER

                                                                          Date of Complaint  : 18.01.2011

                                                                 Date of Order         : 05.05.2016

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT :    THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM, M.A.M.L.,                  :  PRESIDENT                     

                     TMT.K. AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                :  MEMBER – I

                     DR.T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

                                                     

C.C.No. 36 / 2011

THIS THURSDAY  5^th   DAY OF MAY 2016

 

R.Shanmugham,

S/o. Ramalingam,

Old No.32/C, New No.82,

Durairaj Street,

Palavanthangal,

Chennai 600 114.                                           .. Complainant.

                                                         - Vs-

The Manager, Citi Bank, Home Loan Section, City Bank NA, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.                                           .. Opposite party.

 

For the complainant             :    M/s. A.P.Sathyamurthy & another          

For the opposite party          :    M/s. S. Namasivayam & others

 

ORDER

THIRUMATHI.K.AMALA,   ::    MEMBER-I

 

Complaint under section 12  of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The complaint is filed seeking direction against  the opposite party  to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as damages for mental agony and deficiency in service and also to pay cost of the complaint to the complainant.

1.      The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:-  

       

        The complainant obtained housing loan from the opposite party six years back for a sum of Rs.4,30,000/- to be paid in 72 equal monthly installments for a sum of Rs.8516/- per month for which the complainant pledged the property situated at Old No.32/C, New No.82 Durairajan Street, Palavathangal, Chennai 114.  The complainant was regular in payment of EMI and after 62 installments during May 2009 he approached the opposite party for pre-closure of the loan amount to meet out his urgent family commitments.  In order to discharge his liability he received a sum of Rupees 2 lakhs as advance from one R.Chandra with whom he entered into an agreement in the said agreement there was a clause that the sale transaction has to be completed within the period of three months failing which the vendor has to repay the agreed amount with additional sum of Rs.50,000/- as damages.  Apart from his he also entered into another agreement of sale for purchase of a small property with one Mrs.Indirani for which paid a sum of Rs.60,000/- as advance in which there was a clause that if the purchaser failed to execute the sale deed in his favour he is not entitled to get back the advance amount.   He paid a sum of Rs.45,250/- on 10.6.2009 and the opposite party issued a receipt in deposit slip No.124, dated 10.6.2001.    

2.     On 2.7.2009 the bank had withdrawn a sum of Rs.8,516/- being the EMI through ECS.   After full and final settlement of the loan amount the opposite party arbitrarily had withdrawn a sum of Rs.8,516/- for his account which amounts to cheating and after payment the opposite party had remitted back the amount without any interest.    The amount withdrawn by the opposite party was kept for repayment of credit card loan account.   Due to the act the cheque given for repayment of credit card loan got dishonourned and the complainant was forced to make  payment to the defaulted period along with interest.    The complainant entered into two sale agreement on belief that the opposite party will return the original title deeds pledged with them.  But the opposite party never returned the original documents and he lost nearly  Rs.1,10,000/- as per the clause of the agreement.     He put much effort to get back the original documents from the opposite party by approaching the opposite party in person as well as through several phone calls.   It is pertinent to note that the opposite party had given a letter of full and final settlement on 22.5.2009 stating that after making full payment original documents will be returned on or after 30 working days from the date of receipt of the payment.  But even after six months the opposite party had not returned the original documents.   He wrote the letter to the opposite party on 30.12.2009 claiming damage for which the opposite party sent a communication that they are investigating the letter.   He received a letter dated 13.1.2010 from the opposite party informing him that he has to repay the credit card loan amount and then only the document will be returned to him.    The opposite party had not whispered about the credit card loan and after six months demanding the credit card payment from him.   There is no connection between the house loan and the credit card loan.   They are having separate transaction for the loan accounts which cannot be mingled together.   As such the complainant was put to financial loss and mental torture.   The stand taken by the opposite party that they will release the original documents only after the entire credit card loan is paid amounts to unfair trade practice.   Hence he was forced to make the credit card payment and the opposite party returned the original documents after the lapse of two months.   Hence the act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service.   He also issued legal notice to  the opposite party to return the original title deeds but there was no fruitful reply from them.  Hence the complainant filed the above complaint to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as damages towards mental agony and monetary loss caused by the deficiency in service of the opposite party and cost of the complaint.

  

Written Version of   opposite party is in briefly as follows:

3.     The opposite party denies all the averments and allegation contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein.    The complainant had two accounts with the opposite party both under home loan and credit card.  The home account is No.408676 and the credit card No.36706261263016.   The complainant obtained the home loan of Rs.4,30,000/- repayable in 72 equal monthly installments of Rs.8516/- and created equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds.   On complainant clearing the entire outstanding the opposite party returned the original documents.  The allegations made by the complainant that the amount quoted by the opposite party was higher than the amount which the complainant is liable to pay by way of EMI are denied as totally baseless and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same.  The other allegations made in the complaint are denied and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same.  The allegations with reference to sale agreements made in the complaint are denied as they relate to the third  parties who are not impleaded in the complaint and the same is liable to be dismissed for non joinder of parties.     Having received the loan based on the terms and conditions agreed to by the complainant through a written agreement the complainant is estopped from questioning the same at this distance of time.    The opposite party had promptly vide letter dated 11.1.2010 stated that they are investing the matter.    The complainant having availed the services and facilities under credit card he ought to know that he is liable to pay for the same.  As such the allegations that the opposite party had not whispered about the outstanding is a clear attempt to mislead this Honble forum.  The complainant has sought an exorbitant amount as damages is to make unjust enrichment.  Having received the original documents without any whisper of protest the complainant has acquiesced and as such it is not open to the complainant to allege the deficiency of service.    Therefore there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice and the complaint is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merit.

 4.   Complainant has filed his Proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to Ex.A12   were marked on the side of the complainant.   Proof affidavit of  opposite party filed and  Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 were  marked on the side of the  opposite party.  

5.         The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-

1)   Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the  reliefs sought for?.

6.     POINTS 1 to 2 : -   

Perused the complaint filed by the complainant, the written version filed by the  opposite  party, proof affidavits filed by the complainant and the opposite party and the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A12 filed on the side of complainant  Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 filed on the side of the opposite party and the written arguments filed by them and also considered the arguments of the both sides.  

7.     The complainant contended that  he obtained the housing loan from the opposite party for a sum of Rs.4,30,000/- to be paid in 72 equal monthly installment for a sum of Rs.8516/- by pledging his property.   In order to pre-close his loan account he approached the opposite party and he was informed to pay a sum of Rs.45,250/- which was fully paid by him on 10.6.2009.  But the opposite party failed to return the original documents.  Meanwhile he executed the two sale agreements.  Due to long return of the original documents by the opposite party he incurred a loss of Rs.1,10,000/- due to long fulfillment of the sale agreement.   Further on 2.7.2009  the bank had withdrawn a sum of Rs.8,516/- being the EMI through ECS.   After full and final settlement of the loan amount the opposite party arbitrarily had withdrawn a sum of Rs.8,516/- for his account which amounts to cheating and after payment the opposite party had remitted back the amount without any interest.  The amount withdrawn by the opposite party was kept for repayment of credit card loan account.   Due to the act the cheque given for repayment of credit card loan got dishonourned and the complainant was forced to make  payment to the defaulted period along with interest.   The opposite party sent the notice to the complainant stating that he has to repay the credit card loan amount and only then the documents would be returned. 

8.     The complainant contended that the home loan account and credit card loan account are two different transactions.  After a period of six months the opposite party sent the intimation for repayment of credit card loan account without returning the original documents which amount to unfair trade practice.   He was also forced to make the credit card payment but despite of payment of credit card loan account the opposite party returned the original documents after the lapse of two months due to which he was put into physical strain and monetary loss.  As such he issued a legal notice to the opposite party for which they failed to send any reply.   Hence the above complaint.

9.     The opposite party filed written version objecting the contention of the compliant.  The opposite party admitted that two accounts of the complainant one  the home loan account and the other being the credit card loan account.   The opposite party admitted the payment of the home loan account whereas stated that the complainant having availed the services under the credit card ought to know that he is liable to be pay for the same.  Hence after clearing the entire outstanding in the credit card loan account the opposite party returned the original documents to the complainant.   Having received the original documents without any whisper of protest, the allegations of deficiency of service against the opposite party will not arise as such the opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint as devoid of merit.

10.    It is not disputed by the complainant that he had two loan accounts one being home loan account and other the credit card loan account with the opposite party.  The payment of the entire home loan account is also evidenced through Ex.A1.  

11.    But  the grievance of the complainant is that though he settled the home loan account on 10.6.2009 as pre-closure the opposite party failed  to hand over the original documents but sent a reply after six months stating that due to balance due in the credit card account they had lot returned the original documents.   His further grievance is that even after payment of the entire due in the credit card account the opposite party returned the original documents only after the lapse of two months.  Thereby causing monitory loss and mental agony to him due to the  deficiency in service.

12.      The settlement of home loan account is not denied by the opposite party.  With regard to the issue raised by the complainant that the opposite party ought to have returned the original documents  after payment of entire loan account, the letter transactions between the complainant and the opposite party i.e. Ex.A9 & Ex.A11 reveals that there was balance due in the credit card account of the complainant and  due to which the opposite party refused to return the original documents.      Moreover the balance due in the credit card loan account is also not disputed by the complainant.   Moreover the contention of the opposite party in their written version as well as in their proof affidavit that the complainant received the original documents without any whisper of protest and having availed the credit card facility the complainant ought to know that he is liable to pay for the same is also acceptable.  As such the contention of the complainant that the opposite party committed deficiency in service in not returning the original documents even after payment of home loan account is not acceptable.    

13.    With regard to the other grievance of the complainant that  even after payment of the entire dues in the credit card loan account the opposite party returned the original documents after delay of two months the complainant failed to establish the delay either through any documents i.e. the date on which they returned the original documents  or through any evidence.     As such claiming deficiency of service on the ground that the opposite party returned the original documents after two months delay is not sustainable since the complainant failed to establish the same.     

14.      The counsel for the opposite party also submitted that they got a right of lien  towards the balance due on the credit card loan account and unless the said dues are settled they could not return the original documents is acceptable.   Though the complainant has sent legal notice to the opposite party the complainant had not paid the credit card loan amount dues is not disputed by him.      

15.    Moreover the complainant cannot claim relief taking advantage of the fault of the  opposite party whereas he is duty bound to prove the deficiency of service attributed against the opposite party but the complainant failed to prove his case.   With regard to the other allegations raised in the complaint is not established through any documentary evidence.

16.    Therefore considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the considered opinion that the opposite party considered the balance due on the credit card loan account as a right of lien towards return of original documents and after settlement of the same the original documents has been returned and the complainant also failed to establish the alleged delay caused in returning the original documents  through any documentary evidence and as such the complaint is not maintainable  as  the  complainant  failed  to establish

his case as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  Accordingly the points 1 & 2 are answered.

In the result the complaint is dismissed.   No cost.  

                Dictated directly by the Member-I to the Assistant, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the Member-I and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 5^th   day of  May   2016.

 

MEMBER-I                                        MEMBER-II                                           PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s Side documents :

Ex.A1- 22.5.2009      - Copy of settlement letter from the opposite party to the

                               complainant.

 

Ex.A2- 10.6.2009      - Copy of collection deposit slip.

 

Ex.A3- 27.7.2009      - Copy of City Bank N.A.collection deposits slip.

 

Ex.A4-                    -        - Copy of Complainant statement of Accounts.

 

Ex.A5- 5.6.2009        - Copy of Sales agreement between Mrs.Chandra  and complainant

 

Ex.A6- 19.6.2009      - Copy of sale agreement between Mrs. Indirani and complainant.

 

Ex.A7- 30.12.2009     - Copy of letter by the complainant to the opposite party.

 

Ex.A8- 11.1.2010      -  Copy of letter by the opposite party to the complainant.

 

Ex.A9- 13.1.2010      - Copy of letter by opposite party to the complainant.

 

Ex.A10- 18.1.2010     - Copy of letter by the complainant to the opposite party.

 

Ex.A11- 30.1.2010     - Copy of letter by opposite party to the complainant.

 

Ex.A12- 4.2.2010      - Copy of legal notice.

 

 

Opposite party’s side documents: -  

 

 

Ex.B1-                    -        - Copy of Power of Attorney.

 

Ex.B2-                    -        - Copy of Statement of loan accounts.

 

 

MEMBER-I                                         MEMBER-II                                          PRESIDENT.