DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 133 of 1.4.2016
Decided on: 13.7.2017
Gurjeet Singh S/o Sh.Gurdev Sigh, aged 52 years, resident of # 55/3, Hira Mahal, Nabha, District Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
- I.C.I.C.I. Bank Ltd., Patiala through its Branch Manager.
- I.C.I.C.I. Bank Ltd., I.C.I.C.I. Bank Towers,, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-4000051 through its Chairman/Managing Director.
- Branch Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., S.C.O.No.116-117 Basement, New Leela Bhawan, Patiala.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.P.S.Walia,Advocate, counsel for the complainant.
Sh.R.K.Pandey,Advocate, counsel for
Opposite parties No.1&2.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Complainant Gurjeet Singh has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) praying for the following reliefs:-
2. In brief , the case of the complainant is that he took a housing loan to the tune of Rs.3,80,000/- on 8.9.2003 from OPs No.1&2 by depositing the original sale deed bearing Wasika No.2094 dated 31.3.1971 as security. The said sale deed was in the name of the mother of the complainant namely Smt.Jagjeet Kaur w/o Gurdev Singh, who stood as guarantor for the repayment of the loan amount.After completion of all the formalities the OPs no.1&2 sanctioned the loan and disbursed the amount through cheque at Nabha. It is stated that he had paid the entire loan amount and the OPs No.1&2 issued receipt No.1111248 dated 29.9.2008 regarding the clearance of the loan amount. It is further stated that at the time of clearing the loan amount, the Manager of the OP No.1 Bank assured him that the Original Sale deed would be returned within a short period. However, till the filing of the present complaint, Ops did not return the original sale deed. He made so many requests orally as well as in writing but to no effect. Ultimately, he filed a civil suit in the Court at Nabha which was withdrawn on 27.5.2015.It is stated that he came to know from the reply filed by OPs No.1&2 that his loan portfolio was assigned /sold to Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.,6th F,Vinay Bhavya Complex, 159-A, CST Road, Kalina Santacruz(East),Mumbai-98 on 31.12.2007.He got served a legal notice on 31.10.2015 upon Branch Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.,S.C.O.116-117, Basement , New Leela Bhawan, Patiala.However, it neither returned the sale deed nor filed reply to the legal notice. It is stated that OPs no.1&2 never informed him regarding the assignment of the loan portfolio to OP no.3 despite having issued a receipt with regard to the payment of the loan amount on 29.8.2008 as full and final payment to him. This act of the OPs not only amounted to unfair trade practice but also amounted to deficiency in service on their part, which caused mental agony and physical harassment to him.Hence this complaint with a prayer for a direction to the OPs to return the Original Sale deed retained by the OPs illegally. They may also be directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation alongwith costs. Any other relief which this Forum may deem fit may also be awarded.
3. Cognizance of the complaint was taken against OPs No.1&2 only, who on put to notice appeared and filed the written version,taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complaint is barred by limitation and that the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties as the co-applicant in the loan namely Smt.Paramjit Kaur, guarantor Jagjeet Kaur, in the loan has not been impleaded as party in the complaint. On merits , it is admitted that the complainant alongwith Smt.Paramjit Kaur obtained a housing loan of Rs.3,80,000/- vide agreement No.LBNAB0000036500, on floating rate of interest . It is stated that the complainant failed to repay the loan installments regularly and under the compelling circumstances the OPs bank had assigned the loan port folio of the complainant to Kital Mahindra Bank Ltd., 6th Floor, Vinay Bhavya Complex, 159-A, CST 31.12.207 and informed the complainant vide letter dated 7.4.2008 advising him to pay his dues to the said bank. It is denied that they ever issued any receipt No.1111248 dated 29.9.2008 regarding the full and final payment of the loan.The said receipt is forged and fabricated, the authenticity of which could only be proved by the Civil Court .After denying all other averments made in the complaint, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. On being called to do so,the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant,Ex.CA alongwith the documents Exs.C1 to C4 and closed the evidence.
The ld.counsel for Ops no.1&2 has tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh.Arashdeep Kumar, Legal Manager, ICICI Bank, Ex.OPA alongwith document,Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case,carefully.
6. The ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that on 8.9.2003, the complainant took a house loan of Rs.3,80,000/- from Ops no.1&2 and had deposited the original sale deed bearing wasika No.2094 dated 31.3.1971. He paid the entire loan amount and nothing is due against him and the ICICI bank had issued receipt No.1111248 dated 29.8.2008 regarding clearance of the loan amount Inspite of that the Ops have not released the original sale deed which he deposited with the ICICI Bank as security.
7. The ld. counsel for Ops No.1&2, has vehemently argued that due to non deposit of the installments of the loan amount by the complainant, the ICICI Bank, under compelling circumstances, as per terms and conditions of the agreement, assigned/sold the loan portfolio of the complainant to the Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. as per banking rules and regulations, on 31.12.2007 and complainant was accordingly informed vide letter dated 7.4.2008,Ex.OP1. He has further submitted that the alleged receipt No.1111248 dated 29.8.2008 of Rs.5,86,769/- is not issued by the Ops and is a false document. He further submitted that the complainant had earlier filed a civil suit on the same facts before the Civil Court at Nabha and lateron has withdrawn the same because he was unable to prove the authenticity of the said receipt. He further argued that the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the point of limitation because the complainant has alleged that he had paid the entire loan amount in the year 2008 but the bank had not returned the sale deed. As per Section 24A of the Act, the complainant could have filed the complaint against the Bank within a period of two years from the cause of action.The cause of action has arisen to the complainant in the year 2008 and complainant could have filed the complaint against Ops no.1&2, in the year 2010, but he has filed the present complaint on 1.4.2016.Thus the complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed not only on merits but also on the ground of limitation.
8. From the letter dated 7.4.2008,Ex.OP1, it is evident that Ops no.1&2 informed the complainant regarding assigning of his loan account to Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. From perusal of copy of payment receipt dated 29.8.2008, Ex.C2, it is evident that on the top of the right side of the said receipt the name of the customer has been mentioned as Gurjeet Singh, whereas on the left hand side of the said receipt at the bottom, the name of the customer has been written as Sarabjeet Singh. Thus, the plea of the complainant that he paid the entire loan amount to ICICI Bank and in lieu of that it has issued the receipt No. 1111248 dated 29.8.2008 of Rs.5,86,769/- to him is not tenable. Even the complaint filed by the complainant is barred by limitation as per Section 24A of the Act because the cause of action regarding non release of sale deed by the ICICI Bank, as alleged by the complainant, was accrued to the complainant in the year 2008, but the complainant has filed the present complaint in the year 2016, i.e. beyond the period of limitation two years.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on merits as well as on the ground of limitation. Consequently, we hereby dismiss the same with no order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED:13.7. 2017
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
