Order-12.
Date-05/02/2016.
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that he availed of one home loan from OP’s Bank to the extent of Rsl6,50,000/- against loan account no.LB CAL00001158527 in the year 2005 and on 6th August, 2015 OP Bank after clearance of the entire loan with interest issued no due certificate of the above loan and one link loan and complainant attached payment schedule as settlement certificate of the said loan and copy of Bank Draft paid to the OP on 08-07-2015 .
On full payment of the house loan finally on 08-07-2015 bank issued NOC of the payment and link loan payment in full and final and there is no dues in respect of the said loan remain payable to the OP which is settled full and final.
Against that loan account title deed of the charged property which is kept mortgage and secure3d assets to the Bank being premises No.427, Sarkar Hut Lane, Sursuna, Kolkata – 700 061 which is lying in the custody of the OP Bank though that said home loan being No.LB CAL 00001453606 and link loan LB CAL00001158527 is fully and finally paid and no objection certificate is granted by the OP to the complainant as final settlement.
But in spite of full and final payment and even after issuance of NOC against loan bank has withhold the said property and had not been returning the said title deed after redemption of said mortgage debts and dues in full and final. No doubt complainant as a consumer is deceived by the OP and such sort of act is unfair practice and for which complainant has prayed for redressal for negligent and deficient manner of service and deceitful manner of trade.
On the other hand OP Bank by filing written statement submitted that no doubt the complainant already paid entire outstanding against loan account being no.LD CAL 00001453606 and LB CAL00001158527 as per settlement letter issued to the complainant dated 30-07-2015 and 20-08-2015.
In the settlement letter it is specifically mentioned that “in case you have taken any other loan/stood guarantor for loan or card product from the Bank which has outstanding dues, then Bankwill be within its rights to withhold the No Dues pending certificate and related documents for the said loan/card product, till such time all pending dues are paid by customer to the bank” as shall appear from the annexure of the instant complaint.
It is specifically mentioned that complainant availed of one credit card facility against credit card No.4477470165501009and against that credit card a sum of Rs.1,439,775-25 is still outstanding and complainant has not paid it though the transaction details of the credit card was sent to the complainant month by month but complainant has not cleared it.
Further complainant took a loan of Rs.1,50,000/- against loan Account No.LP CAL00012442597 which was disbursed on January 31, 2008 and same is outstanding for Rs.3,79,044/-
Further against card no.9401270088140004 there is outstanding dues for Rs.1,84,774-49 so the complainant as a borrower has outstanding dues with respect to the credit card and personal loan facilitie3s availed by him from the OP Bank and against personal loan plus two credit cards the outstanding amount is now, 7,13,593-74.
Legal notices dated 24-02-2011 were sent to the complainant claiming an amount of Rs.1,84,774-49 and Rs.1,49,775-25 against said two credit cards.
The loan agreement dated 05-09-2005 entered between the complainant and the OP capturing Clause 2.12 which reads as “Cross Default – The borrower agrees, confirms and acknowledges that any default by the borrowqer under any credit facility, agreement or arrangement with ICICI Bank or its subsidiaries and affiliates or any other bank/financial institution/non-banking financial company and other lender/creditors shall constitute an event facility agreement or arrangement with ICICI Bank or its subsidiaries and affiliates, vice versa”.
In view of the above clause complainant is liable to clear all the outstanding dues and present loan against credit card and personal loan account and till full payment of the same under any circumstances their deed canot be handed over to the complainant and as per banking rules same has not been handed over till clearance of the other outstanding. So, the claim of the complainant is completely not tenable in the eye of law and as per provision of law that has been contains and no doubt there is no deficiency, negligence on the part of the OP for which this complaint should be dismissed.
Decision with Reasons
On an indepth study of the complaint and the written version and also considering the materials on record it is undisputed fact that complainant cleared two home loan account no doubt and that has beenadmitted by the OP and in respect of that two home loan accounts OP has issued no objection certificate. But it is a fact that OP should return the title deed which was deposited by the complainant against taking loan for mortgaging the same on the ground as security.
Admitted position is that complainant also took personal loan and two credit cards for which huge amount is still unpaid and complainant has not denied about that fact though the same is not ventilated in the complaint for some purpose and no doubt complainant is duty bound to pay the same also.
In the present case Ld. Lawyer for the complainant tried to convince that the said home loan was financed by ICICI Home Finance Company Ltd. but fact remains ICICI Bank has tied up with that organization and practically ICICI Bank granted that loan which is evident from the settlement letter and truth is that complainant accepted the settlement letter and cleared the outstanding dues as per term as specified in the settlement letter. At the same time from the agreement of loan it is found that loan agreement was executed in between the complainant and the OP in all respect and in the said loan agreement it is clearly mentioned that in other loan taken by the complainant if it he is found outstanding in that case complainant shall have to clear the same and bank has a general lien of over such valuable deposit on behalf of the customer in ordinary course of banking business and such a general lien is valuable of the bankers which is generally recognized.
Considering the above fact and the position of law and further considering the judgment of the National Commission as reported in I (2015) CPJ 8 (NC) and particularly the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Syndicate Bank vs. Vijay Kumar & ors. in AIR 1992 SC 1066 we are convinced that apart from any specific security the banker can lock to his general lien as a protection against loss on loan or overdues or other credit facility and the general lien of bankers is part of law merchant and judicially recognized as such and relying upon the said judgement we are convinced to hold that the contention of the bank though it has general lien and therefore, they are entitled to the amount of principal loan account that means against personal loan account and credit card outstanding etc. and in view of the legal proposition as enunciated in referred ruling and cases we are convinced to hold that bank is certainly entitled to keep the documents till other loan is not cleaned by the complainant and repaid to the bank, when fact remains there is outstanding and against personal loan against credit card outstanding and about that complainant has nothing to say and he expressed that same are not paid and it is since 2008.
In view of the above findings and also the ruling and also the principal of law enunciated in the above judgment of the Supreme Court we are convinced to hold that it is for the bank to decide whether any further settlement can be made in respect of the outstanding if complainant files any such application and invariably it is domain of the bank authority but the Forum cannot decide the same. However, after overall evaluation of the entire materials on record and the entire legal proposition and the fact of this case we are convinced to hold that the complainant has failed to prove any sort of negligent, deficiency and unfair trade practice practiced by the OP rather it is found that Bank authority acted as per Rules and Regulations and as per judgment of the Supreme Court it is found that Bank is certainly entitled to withheld the title deed till other outstanding amount is not paid by the complainant and such a document can be detained till repayment of the entire outstanding against other accounts of the complainant lying in the present bank.
In the result, the complaint fails.
Hence,
Ordered
That the case be and the same is dismissed on contest without any cost against the OP.
