BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ATHYDERABAD
F.A.No.355 OF 2010 AGAINST C.C.No.512 OF 2008 DISTRICT FORUM-IVISAKHAPATNAM
Between
Sri Muppidi Eswara Rao S/o late Satyam
aged 56 years, R/o H.No.94, Plot No.96
Ground Floor, Siddardha Nagar, Vadlapudi
Visakhapatnam-012
ICICI Bank Limited
rep. by its Branch Manager
103A, 1stVisakhapatnam
Counsel for the Appellant
Counsel for the Respondent
QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)
1. `28,480/-with interest @9%p.a. `1,00,000/- towards compensation and `8,000/- . the complainant filed the appeal contending that the amount awarded is inadequate.
2. `2,50,000/- from the respondent bank on 21-09-2002 with floating rate of interest @ 11.25% payable in 133 equated monthly installments @`3,202/-. The loan was to be repaid during the period from 7-11-2002 to 7-11-2013.
3. `2,21,762/- and it did not respond to the request made by the appellant on 5-03-2005 and 21-03-2005 as to the confirmation of possession of the title deeds and delivering them to the GIC Housing Financial Ltd. On 24-11-2207 the appellant paid the entire loan amount minus a sum of`5,000/- reduced by the respondent bank. Title deeds were not returned to the appellant.
4. `25,00,000/- and received a sum of`5,00,000/- as advance and on his failure to hand over the title deed `5,00,000/-. The appellant claims loss of interest on the amount of`20,00,000/ - due towards the balance sale consideration from the prospective purchaser of the property, loss due to deprivation of availing the house building loan from GIC Housing Financial Ltd and payment of interest on the advance of`5,00,000/- , due to the failure of the respondent to return the documents .
5.
6.
7.
8. `1,00,000/- which is not adequate since the appellant was forced to pay interest @ 36%p.a. and visited the office of the respondent bank for several times.
9.
10. `2,50,000/- on interest @ 11.25 payable in 133 equated monthly installments and repayment of the loan on 24-11-2007 is not disputed. The District Forum returned finding that the respondent bank was negligent in not returning the documents after discharge of the loan by the appellant, basing on the decisions of the Hon’ble National Commission in “HDFC vs Santa Sundar Rajan” 2008(4)30(NC), “Tukaram Anantha Set vs Karnataka Bank”I(2006)CPJ110 (NC), “C.L.Khanna vs Dena Bank”IV(2005)CPJ 137 (NC), “Dosan Chemicals Pvt Ltd vs United Bank of India “I(2003)CPJ 214(NC).
11.
12.
13.
KMK*
