COMPLAINT FILED: 26.05.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 31st JULY 2008<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 1190/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Parashuram,<br /> No. 149:44, 8th Cross,<br /> 3rd Main Road,<br /> Venkatapura, <br /> Koramangala 3rd Block,<br /> Bangalore – 34.<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY Shri. Monish,<br /> Branch Sales Manager,<br /> ICICI Home Finance,<br /> R.G. Chamber, 3rd Floor,<br /> 80 Feet Road,<br /> Koramangala Industrial Area,<br /> Bangalore – 95.<br /> <br /> <br /> Advocate (B.S. Sudhir)<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant to direct the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to release the loan sanctioned and pay a compensation of Rs.4,25,000/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> Complainant availed the financial assistance from the OP, OP was pleased to sanction the loan to the tune of Rs.11,16,638/- and sent letter of allotment on 19.12.2007. Thereafter somehow failed to release the said loan amount. As per the demand and request made by the OP complainant has produced all the relevant title deeds and documents. Of course original mother deed was lost, that is why certified copy is produced. Though complainant complied all the requirements, OP failed to release the said loan. He even got issued the notice on 15.05.2008. Again there was no response. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP the complainant availed loan by mortgaging the immovable property, that too by pledging the title deeds, thereafter failed to produce the mother deed on the basis of which complainant wants to create mortgage on the said immovable property. Under the circumstances OP did not release the said loan though it sanctioned it because complainant has not complied with a terms and conditions of the said loan. There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the OP. As such OP is not liable to pay any compensation as prayed muchless release the loan that was sanctioned. The complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the reliefs now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Negative<br /> Point No.2:- Negative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant has sought for the sanction of the loan by creating the mortgage on the immovable property and by deposit of the title deeds. OP did sanction the loan and intimated the same vide letter dated 19.12.2007. The letter copy is produced. Now it is the grievance of the complainant that though he complied all the requirements and produced all the necessary documents, OP failed to release the said loan in time. According to the complainant the mother deed executed by Sri. Amarnath with respect to the said immovable property has been lost, that is why he has produced the certified copy of the same along with the affidavit, etc. Those documents are just and sufficient to establish his title and possession. Even the opinion given by the legal advisor concerned supports the said contention. With all that OP failed to discharge its obligation. Hence he felt the deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 7. As against this it is specifically contended by the OP that they trusted the words of the complainant and sanctioned the loan. But at the time of the release of the said loan complainant is expected to produce all the original documents with respect to the mortgage of the property as well as the deposit of the title deeds. As admitted by the complainant himself he has not produced the original mother deed. Under the circumstances OP has got a right to stop the release of the loan that was sanctioned. The non-release of the loan by the OP to the complainant under the circumstances cannot be construed as deficiency in service under the eye of law. It is legally open to the baking company concerned to take a decision in good faith in the exercise of its bonafide discretions whether it is safe to make advance of public funds to any particular party and arrive at a decision after examining relevant facts and title deeds.<br /> <br /> 8. OP after the verification of all the documents produced by the complainant came to the conclusion that it is not safe on their part to rely upon the certified copy of the mother deed, ultimately refused to release the said loan. So it cannot be said that when after consideration of the relevant factors the Bank in its discretion decides not to release the loan, there has been deficiency in service on their part. It is in this in view of the matter, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The complaint allegations appears to be baseless and complaint is devoid of merits. Under the circumstances the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 31st day of July 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />