DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.507 of 2015
Date of institution: 04.11.2015 Date of decision : 03.04.2017
1. Mukesh Mittal son of Ram Kumar Mittal
2. Manoj Kumar Mittal son of Ram Kumar Mittal
Residents of House No.515, Sector 16, Panchkula.
……..Complainants
Versus
1. GE Money Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. having its registered office at Unit No.401 & 402, 4th Floor, Aggarwal Millennium Tower, E-1,2,3, Netaji Subhash Palace, Pitampura, New Delhi 110034 through its Branch Head/Managing Director.
2. GE Capital Services India (A Public Company with unlimited Liability) earlier known as GE Money Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., having its registered office at 401, 402, 4th Floor, Aggarwal Millennium Tower, E-1,2,3, Netaji Subhash Palace, Wazirpur, Pitampura, New Delhi 110034 through its Branch Head/Managing Director.
3. Magma Fincorp Limited having its registered office at # Magma House, 24 Park Street, Kolkata 700016 through its Managing Director.
4. Magma Fincorp Limited having its branch office at # SCF No.75, 2nd/3rd Floor, Phase-IX, Mohali-160062 through its Branch Head.
5. Branch Head, Magma Fincorp Limited, SCF No.75, 2nd/3rd Floor, Phase-IX, Mohali-160062
………. Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum
Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President Ms. Natasha Chopra, Member
Present: Shri Amit Kohar, counsel for the complainants.
Shri Puneet Tuli, counsel for the OP No.3,4, and 5.
None for OP No.1 and 2.
ORDER
By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President
Complainants Mukesh Mittal and Manoj Kumar Mittal have filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
2. The complainant No.1 is running his business under the name of M/s. Mayur Trading Co. having its office at village Sultanpur, Near Barwala, District Panchkula for earning his livelihood by means of self employment. The firm is a partnership firm and is engaged in the business of selling poultry feed, maize etc. to various firms in the State of Haryana. The complainants are co-owners of property bearing House No.515, Sector 16, Panchkula. The house is measuring 250 sq. yards. In March, 2005 the complainants had taken property/housing loan from OP No.1 for investment in the aforesaid business. Total amount of Rs.57,56,710/- was disbursed to the complainants on 30.03.2005 and 07.06.2006. The tenure of the loan ends on 07.02.2033. The loan was to be paid in 179 equated monthly installments of Rs.63,658/-. Before disbursement of the loan, the bank officials took the signatures of the complainants on number of printed blank forms on the assurances that these are only formalities. After a period of 7 years in the year 2012, complainant No.2 received a letter dated 12.02.2013 from OP No.1 mentioning therein that OP No.1 and OP No.3 have entered into an agreement for sale of entire home loan and home equity portfolio of the company to OP No.3 and/or any of its affiliates. It was also mentioned that GE Money Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. will sell its entire home loan and home equity portfolio to OP No.3 on 13.02.2013. It was also mentioned that all rights, liabilities and interest under the loan agreement and all other agreements, deeds, undertakings and memorandum in respect of loan account No.HCHE00000030 as well as underlying security shall stand transferred and assigned in favour of OP No.3 or its affiliates w.e.f. 13.02.2013. Under the belief and assurance given by OP No.1 vide aforesaid letter, the complainants were regularly paying the installments of loan to OP No.3 w.e.f. 13.02.2013 under the bonafide belief that the documents which were deposited with OP No.1 as security at the time of taking loan were also handed over to OP No.3. OP No.3 has never raised any objection regarding original title deed belonging to the house of the complainants at any point of time. OP No.4 had accepted all the installments from the complainants on behalf of OP No.3.
In the month of April, 2015 the complainants were in need of money for clearing the aforesaid existing loan as well as to invest in their business. They applied to Axis Bank for loan against property. Axis bank approved loan of Rs.1,30,00,000/- vide letter dated 08.06.2015. The bank officials of Axis Bank asked the complainants about the title deeds of their property for releasing the loan amount for the purpose of security in repayment of sanctioned loan amount. The validity of the sanctioned loan was 90 days. The complainant approached OP No.4 and OP No.5 about the balance/remaining loan amount and original title deeds etc. of their property. In the statement of accounts received by the complainants on 27.06.2015 through e-mail an amount of Rs.54,02,830.44 was shown as balance. Earlier on 18.06.2015 the complainants called the customer care of OP No.3 and demanded the list of documents including title deed etc. The complaint of the complainants was registered vide complaint No.10235359 but was never resolved. Thereafter on 01.07.2015, 10.07.2015, 17.07.2015, 20.07.2015 and 29.07.2015 the complaints were registered but till date the complaint is still pending. OP No.3 has failed to supply the documents which are lying with them and kept on lingering the matter. Due to this the complainant have not availed the loan amount sanctioned by the Axis Bank within time and have suffered business loss to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/-. The complainants vide e-mail dated 24.07.2015 asked OP No.4 and OP No.5 to stop loan account and supply list of documents urgently. The customer care of the company sent the foreclosure statement to the complainants and that with regard to query on list of documents, the matter has been forwarded to dedicated department and they would contact the complainants at the earliest. This shows that the documents are still lying with OP No.3. The complainants have also sent letter dated 29.07.2015 to OP No.4 demanding the list of documents but no plausible explanation has been given. On 03.08.2015 one of the complainant received letter from OP No.4 by resiling from their earlier e-mail dated 24.07.2015. It was informed that they have not received any property documents from GE money Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. while acquisition of mortgage loan portfolio by Magma Group. The complainants made a complaint to Banking Ombudsman. The complaint was forwarded by RBI to OP No.3 vide letter dated 8.9.2015 for sending the reply within 10 days but no action has been taken by OP No.3. The complainants have come to know that the documents are in possession of OP No.4 but they have illegally detained due to reasons known to them. The complainants also sent a legal notice dated 15.09.2015 to OP No.4 vide which documents were demanded but no action has been taken and no reply has been given to the legal notice. Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to pay them Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation on account of business loss alongwith interest @ 24% from the date of approval of loan i.e. 08.06.2015 till date of realisation; to return the original title deeds etc.; to pay them Rs.2.00 lakhs towards punitive compensation for harassment, mental tension etc.; to pay Rs.2,00,000/- for unfair trade practice and litigation expenses of Rs.55,000/-.
3. Shri Lovedeep Sarin, Advocate had filed memo of appearance on behalf of OP No.1 and 2 and learned counsel sought time to file reply and POA. The matter was adjourned to 14.03.2016. On 14.03.2016 neither anybody appeared on behalf of OP No.1 and 2 nor reply/POA was filed. The stipulated period of 45 days for filing written version by OP No.1 and 2 expired on 14.03.2016 and in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 04.12.2015 in case New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Ltd., the complaint was proceeded further against OP No.1 and 2.
4. The complaint is contested by OP No.3,4 and 5 by filing reply, in which it has been pleaded that the loan has not been repaid and is still payable thus there is no occasion for any direction by this Forum. The Ops have categorically intimated the complainant that they have not received any property documents from GE Money Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. The complainant has not placed on any receipt regarding submission of documents. In response to the complaint lodged with Banking Ombudsman, the OPs have already intimated the complainant regarding their inability to provide the list of documents or their certified copies as they have not been received by them from GE Money. The complainant has not taken up the issue with OP No.1 and 2 and the legal notice is only addressed to the answering OPs. The complainants are defaulter and are not entitled to any relief. On merits also the OPs have denied any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part and have sought dismissal of the complaint.
5. In order to prove the case, the complainant No.1 tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CW-1/1; copies of partnership deed dated 01.04.2011 Ex.C-1; letter dated 21.07.2006 Ex.C-2; statement of account Ex.C-3; letter dated 12.02.2013 Ex.C-4; information Ex.C-4/A; sanction letter Ex.C-5; statement of account Ex.C-6; e-mail Ex.C-7; e-mail Ex.C-8; letter dated 29.07.2015 Ex.C-9; letter dated 03.08.2015 Ex.C-10; letter dated 27.08.2015 Ex.C-11; letter dated 08.09.2015 Ex.C-12; balance sheet Ex.C-13; income tax return Ex.C-14; legal notice dated 16.09.2015 Ex.C-15 and postal receipt Ex.C-16. In rebuttal, OP No.3, 4 and 5 tendered in evidence affidavit of Devvrat, Assistant Manager Legal Ex.OP-3/1.
6. At the very outset learned counsel for the OPs has argued that in view of the latest decision of Hon’ble National Commission in case Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd Consumer Complaint No.97 Of 2016, Decided On 07/10/2016 this Forum does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint as the value of the property involved in the complaint is more than Rs.20.00 lakhs.
7. On the other hand learned counsel for the complainants has argued that the complainants are only seeking direction from this Forum to the OPs for release of the title deeds of their house and documents which they have submitted with OP No.1 at the time of taking loan. Thus, the reliefs claimed by the complainant are well within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum.
8. We have gone through the pleadings, evidence as well as written and oral arguments of the parties. The complainant themselves have stated in the complaint that earlier they were sanctioned loan of Rs.57,56,710.50 vide letter dated 21.07.2006 Ex.C-2. This loan was taken against the property i.e. House No.515, Sector 16, Panchkula. Further loan of Rs.1,30,00,000/- has been sanctioned by the Axis Bank in favour of the complainants against the aforesaid property vide sanction letter dated 08.06.2015 Ex.C-5. Thus, it can be easily inferred from these two documents i.e. Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-5 that the value of the property in question is more than Rs.20.00 lacs which is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum as per the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in case Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd (supra).
9. Accordingly, in view of the aforementioned judgment of Hon’ble National Commission, the present complaint is hereby ordered to be returned to the complainants alongwith all the requisite documents placed on record. Further the complainants are also granted liberty to approach the appropriate court of law/State Commission/National Commission for redressal of their grievances. A copy of the complaint be retained and copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost.
The arguments on the complaint were heard on 15.03.2017 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. The papers be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced
Dated: 03.04.2017
(A.P.S.Rajput)
President
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
