DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.451 of 29-09-2010 Decided on 22-12-2010
Jaswant Singh, aged about 49 years son of Jang Singh, resident of 555, Street No.21, Bhagu Road, Bathinda, Tehsil and District Bathinda. .......Complainant
Versus
ICICI Bank Ltd., 2928E/34 Queensland Tower, Opposite Clock Tower, Bibiwala Road, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager. Branch Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd., 2928E/34, Queensland Tower, Opposite Clock Tower, Bibiwala Road, Bathinda.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President. Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member. Present:- For the Complainant: Sh.Abhai Khangwal, counsel for the complainant. For Opposite parties: Sh.Sanjay Goyal, counsel for opposite parties.
ORDER
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant has taken a Housing loan of Rs.2 lacs from the opposite parties and got executed all the necessary documents regarding the same. The complainant wanted to sell the said house and as such, he entered into an agreement of sale of the said house on 18.01.2010 and regarding this, the sale deed was to be executed by the complainant on 26.04.2010 in favour of purchaser Kuldeep Kumar son of Bant Ram, resident of 6278, Mata Rani Street, Bathinda.The complainant had been regularly paying the installments of the said housing loan and he deposited Rs.1,27,593/- with the opposite parties on various dates and had got proper receipts. As the complainant wanted to sell his house, he approached the opposite parties and desired to clear the loan amount with interest but the opposite parties compelled the complainant to deposit a sum of Rs.3,29,897/- more and got deposited excess amount on 10.03.2010, despite this, the opposite parties did not return the original sale deed to the complainant. As per the policy of the Bank, it has to return the original sale deed and other documents within 20 days after depositing the dues to the bank. The opposite parties had to return the sale deed to the complainant within 20 days on or before 30.03.2010 but the opposite parties have failed to do so. The opposite parties issued the No Due Certificate to the complainant on 26.04.2010 but has not returned the original sale deed to the complainant and due to which, the complainant could not get the sale deed executed on 26.04.2010 and the purchaser raised a dispute with the complainant and under the compelled circumstances, the complainant has to sell the house to one Smt. Man Kaur wife of Kirpal Singh vide Registered sale deed No.1329 dated 11.05.2010 and had to return the amount of previous purchaser with penalty and suffered heavy losses and underwent mental agony and harassment. The complainant has alleged on one hand that the opposite parties charged the excess amount from the complainant and on the other hand, the opposite parties have caused financial losses to the complainant. The complainant has also sent a legal notice dated 18.05.2010 and reminder notice dated 12.06.2010 issued to the opposite parties. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint. 2. The opposite parties have pleaded in their reply that the complainant had concealed the facts that he had taken two different loan. The complainant made requests for issuance of NOC of one loan only whereas the other loan was taken on the same property and since no request from the complainant was received for closer of other loan also and as such, NOC was issued after taking request from the complainant to close both loans and immediately, thereafter, No Objection Certificate was issued which was received by the complainant without any protest. The opposite parties have further pleaded that on 18.01.2010, the house of the complainant was mortgaged with ICICI Bank Ltd and till the said house is mortgaged with ICICI Bank, the complainant could not entered into an agreement of sale with any person because it attracts provisions of Section 406/420 IPC and amount to cheating. The opposite parties have never compelled the complainant to close his loan by making lump sum payment. There was no fixed period for returning the original documents as the original documents of the complainant and other customers are deposited at Bombay office from where, documents are retrieved. The complainant had already received NOC and original documents on 03.05.2010. 3. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. 4. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused. 5. The complainant had obtained housing loan from the opposite parties to the tune of Rs.2 lacs. He wanted to sell his house and entered into an agreement of sale on 18.01.2010 and regarding this, the sale deed was to be executed on 26.04.2010 in favour of purchaser one Kuldeep Kumar. He had been paying the regular installments of the said housing loan to the tune of Rs.1,27,593/- on various dates. As soon as, the agreement of sale was executed by the complainant with one Kuldeep Kumar, he requested the opposite parties to clear the loan amount with interest. The opposite parties got deposited a sum of Rs.3,29,897/- more and got excess amount from the complainant on 10.03.2010. The complainant submitted that as per the policy, the original sale deed alongwith other documents would be returned within 20 days from the date of returning the loan amount but the opposite parties have failed to return the original sale deed of the complainant and also to issue NOC within time. It has issued NOC on 26.04.2010 but have not returned the original sale deed to the complainant on the same date. Due to which, the complainant could not get the sale deed executed on 26.04.2010 and the dispute raised between the complainant and the purchaser. The complainant in such circumstances, had to sell his property to some other person i.e. one Man Kaur vide Registered sale deed No.1329 dated 11.05.2010 and had to return the amount to the previous purchaser with penalty. 6. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that the complainant has taken two loan on the same property and had made request for issuance of NOC with regard to one loan only whereas, the other loan as taken on the same property and there was no request received from the complainant for closer of other loan and as such, no NOC was issued. After receiving request from the complainant to close the both loans, the opposite parties immediately issued NOC which was received by the complainant on 26.04.2010 and original documents were also received by him without any protest on 03.05.2010. On 18.01.2010, the house of the complainant was mortgaged with ICICI Bank Ltd and till the house of the complainant was mortgaged with ICICI Bank Ltd, the complainant could not entered into an agreement of sale with any person because it attracts provisions of Section 406/420 IPC and amount to cheating as such the agreement if any has no legal bindings. The opposite parties have further pleaded the all the original documents of the complainant and other customers are deposited at Bombay office from where the documents are retrieved and in the present case, the complainant had obtained two different loans and he made request for issuance of NOC for one loan whereas the other loan was also taken on the same property. In the absence of any such request, the NOC was not issued. As soon as, the complainant requested for the closer of both loans and deposited the remaining amount. Thereafter, NOC was issued on 26.04.2010 and original documents were returned on 03.05.2010. 7. The complainant had received original documents on 03.05.2010 without lodging any protest. Regarding this, the complainant deposed in his affidavit Ex.C-1 that he wanted to make a note regarding receiving the documents under protest but the opposite parties did not allow the deponent to lodge such note in their records and now the opposite parties are trying to take benefits of the same. Ex.C-6 shows that he has entered into an agreement with one Kuldeep Kumar for selling his house but the sale deed was not executed as the opposite parties have not given the original sale deed and NOC, despite paying the lump sum payment of the loan amount. Later on, he has to sell his house to other person on 11.05.2010 and had to return the money taken from Kuldeep Kumar i.e. previous purchaser with interest with whom he entered into an agreement to sell his house. 8. The opposite parties have issued No Due Certificate and returned all the original documents, the list of the documents have been mentioned on the second page of Ex.R-3 on 03.05.2010 which shows that approximately after two months, the opposite parties have returned the original documents to the complainant, whereas, he should be given back by the concerned bank within a period of 2-3 days or on the same day. When, the complainant had paid full amount of the loan account to the opposite parties on 10.03.2010, it becomes the immediate duty of the opposite parties to return his original documents and to give him NOC as soon as the loan amount was paid. The agreement between the complainant and the opposite parties comes to an end as soon as the payment of loan amount was cleared and the opposite parties cannot harass the person or make him to wait for a long time for taking the original documents and NOC. 9. In view of what has been discussed above, this Forum is of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as the complainant under compelled circumstances had returned the amount taken from Kuldeep Singh with penalty which caused him financial loss and mental agony. The opposite parties were bound to issue No Objection Certificate and to return the original documents immediately as soon as the loan amount was repaid, the delay on the part of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service. No direction can be given regarding the excess amount taken from the complainant as no evidentary proof has been placed on file to show that what exact amount was taken by the complainant as loan. Hence, this complaint is accepted with Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as cost. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 10. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '
Pronounced in open Forum (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) 22.12.2010 President
(Dr. Phulinder Preet) Member
|
