DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No.445/2010
1. Pushpa Kushwaha
W/o Sh. Ishwar Prasad
2. Ishwar Prasad
S/o Late Sh. Bhagwati Prasad
Both R/o
H.No. S-1, Plot No.80, Media Enclave,
Sector-6, Vaishali Ghaziabad
U.P. 201010 ….Complainants
Versus
ICICI Bank Ltd.
through its Director
Home Loan Department
2nd Floor, Veera Towers,
S-26, Green Park Extension,
New Delhi-110016 ….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 08.07.10 Date of Order : 03.07.17
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
ORDER
The complainants had taken a home loan of Rs.5,50,000/- from the OP vide account No.LBDEL00000 at the initial interest rate of 12.75% for a tenure of 95 months. The complainants paid the amounts in installments from time to time. The property against which the loan was taken was mortgaged with the OP bank alongwith the title deeds. The complainants asked the OP to allow them to inspect the concerned document of the mortgaged property and title deeds kept in the safe custody of the OP after the registration/execution of the sale deed executed at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Ghaziabad but despite number of requests made by the complainants to the OP in this behalf the OP informed them that the sale deed executed by the builder in favour of the complainants in the year 2004 was not available in the records of the OP. The complainants ultimately got the payment of EC stopped after making payment of more than 85% of the loan amount. The OP did not reveal anything about the sale deed. According to the complainants, the OP threatened the complainants by making frivolous telephonic calls in odd hours and to insult the complainants and their family on road, in market and office or anywhere at any place. Hence, pleading unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OP the complainants have filed the present complaint for restraining the OP from threatening and insulting them as stated above, to return the original sale/title deed, to pay Rs.10,000/- towards costs for making telephonic calls, visits made to the various branch offices of the OP and Rs.20,000/- towards cost of litigation.
In the written statement the OP has inter-alia stated that a sum of Rs.59,795/- remains outstanding in the above stated loan account as per the statement dated 30.09.10 generated by it. It is stated that the complainants never got deposited the sale deed of the mortgaged property with the OP. Rather, according to the OP the sale deed in respect of the mortgaged property had never been deposited by builder M/s B.R. Apartments Pvt. Ltd with the OP. Other averments made in the complaint have been denied. It prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
In the rejoinder the complainants have inter-alia stated that as per the information given by the builder to the complainants, the sale deed in respect of the mortgaged property had been sent to the OP and the complainants were informed about this by the builder vide letter dated 20.06.04 (Ex. C1/H).
Complainant No.2 has filed his own affidavit in evidence.
Thereafter, OP has been proceeded exparte.
On 13.03.13 when the complainants asked the OP to return the registered sale deed it was stated on behalf of the OP that the sale deed was with the builder. Therefore, our predecessors directed the complainants to make the builder a party failing which the complainants shall not be entitled to seek the copy of the sale deed from the OP. Thereafter, no one ever appeared on behalf of the complainants despite notice of pairavi issued to them vide dispatch No. 753 dated 18.04.17 for 09.05.17 which was delivered on 02.05.17 vide track report Mark A.
We have gone through the file very carefully.
Ex. C1/H is the copy of a letter stated to be written by the builder to the complainant No.1 whereby she was informed that the original sale deed of the mortgaged property had been handed over to the OP and that as per the terms photocopy of the original sale deed had been sent to the complainant. However, it is very surprising that the complainants have not filed the copy of the sale deed received by them from the builder alongwith the letter dated 20.06.07. Therefore, we have doubts in our minds whether the builder had infact sent original sale deed to the OP or not. However, a copy of the letter dated 31.08.11 has been filed on the record which we mark as Mark AA for the purposes of identification. Vide this letter the complainant No.1 repaid all the dues of the housing loan in question to the OP and received the documents except the original sale deed on 04.11.2011. Copy of letter dated 25.10.11 has been filed on the record which we mark as Mark B for the purposes of identification whereby the OP bank had no claim or right anymore whatsoever against the complainant No.1 or the property in question. Therefore, in view of these two documents and particularly the direction contained in the order sheet dated 13.03.13 we find it highly impossible to believe that the original sale deed had infact been handed over to the OP by the builder at any moment of time. Therefore, we hold that the complainants have failed to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.
In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and dismiss it with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 03.07.17.
