DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, LUCKNOW
CASE No.445 of 2007
1. Sri Jitendra Singh, aged about 43 yrs.,
S/o Sri Indrajeet Singh,
R/o C-925, Indira Nagar,
Lucknow.
2. Smt. Geeta Singh, aged about 34 yrs.,
W/o Sri Jitendra Singh,
R/o C-925, Indira Nagar,
Lucknow.
……Complainants
Versus
1. ICICI Bank Housing Finance Branch,
Shahnajaf Road, Opp. Saharaganj,
Lucknow-226001.
2. Central Bank of India,
Nakhas Branch,
Lucknow.
.......Opp. Parties
Present:-
Sri Vijai Varma, President.
Smt. Anju Awasthy, Member.
JUDGMENT
This complaint has been filed by the Complainants against the OPs for directing the OP No.1 to return the original title deeds and for payment of compensation of Rs.11,75,000.00 with 18% interest from the OP No.1.
The case in brief of the Complainants is that the Complainants applied for a loan from OP No.1 which was granted to them by the OP No.1 in the year 2002. The original sale deeds and the agreement to sale were taken by the OP No.1 for equitable mortgage and OP No.1 had given pay
-2-
order for Rs.5,98,000.00 on 08.01.2002 and for Rs.2.00 lakhs in April, 2003. The Complainants had to surrender the sale deeds for the aforesaid loan. They have been depositing regular instalments of Rs.7,601.00 with OP No.1 at floating rate of 9.75% p.a. and despite the assurance given by OP No.1 that whenever the floating rates were reduced the benefits will be passed on to the Complainants but when the floating rate went down as much as 7.5% p.a. the benefits were not given to the Complainants but when the floating rate start increasing the Complainants were burdened for paying interest @ 12.25% p.a. on the loan amount, thus the OP No.1 has caused double loss to the Complainants. When the EMI went up from Rs.7,601.00 to Rs.8,905.00 then the Complainants decided to change the bank and approached Central Bank of India, Nakhas Branch, Lucknow OP No.2 for taking over the loan and after completion of the formalities to cover the loan the OP No.2 gave a pay order/cheque No.001450 dated 30.12.2006 of Rs.7,66,886.61 to the Complainants in favour of OP No.1. Thereafter, the Complainants demanded the original sale deeds from the OP No.1 as the amount of Rs.7,66,866.61 was deposited through pay order given to the Complainant by OP No.2 but the OP No.1 failed to return the original title deeds even after receiving the entire amount due from the Complainants. The OP No.2 is demanding the original title deeds from the Complainant which was deposited by the Complainant with OP No.1. The Complainants requested the OP No.1 many a times to return the original title deeds so that they could be given to OP No.2 but the OP No.1 has failed to deliver the original title deeds saying that they were lost in floods and the bank has lodged FIR. Due to the negligence of OP No.1 the Complainants are suffering mental pain, torture, agony and since the OP No.1 has committed deficiency in service, therefore this complaint for compensation etc.
-3-
The OP No.1 has filed the WS wherein it is submitted that the interest charged on loans advanced by the OP No.1 has always been charged as per the rules laid down by the Reserve Bank of India and the OP No.1 strictly adheres to the rules laid down by RBI. The OP No.1 has always charged interest from the Complainants as per the floating rate of interest prevailing in the market and as per the RBI guidelines. The OP No.1 is also bound by the PLR and rate of interest is calculated as per the PLR and it is the same for all customers. The OP No.1 has not caused any loss to the Complainants. The Complainants availed the housing loan on floating interest scheme. So, as per the scheme, the rate of interest is determined according to the prevailing rate of interest in the market. So in the present case, when the floating rate of interest increased the EMI was also increased alongwith it and hence the Complainants were bound to pay the increased EMI. The Complainant changed the bank out of their own wish. Due to heavy floods in Mumbai some of the original title deeds of customers kept in possession of OP No.1 were destroyed which included the original title deeds of the Complainants. The OP No.1also lodged an FIR related to the said documents. The Complainant has been informed time and again about the documents that were destroyed in flood and a copy of the FIR related to the said documents was even provided to the Complainants by the OP No.1 clearly showing the bonafide intentions of OP No.1. The OP No.1 has not been deficient or irregular in providing services to the Complainants and has not indulged in any unfair trade practice. The complaint is wrong, illegal and hence it should be dismissed with cost.
The OP No.2 has filed the WS wherein it is submitted that the Complainants approached the answering OP for housing loan on immovable property No.C-925, Indira Nagar, Lucknow which was already mortgaged with the OP No.1. The cheque of amount was deposited with OP No.1 and the same
-4-
was encashed by the OP No.1. The Complainants and OP No.1 were bound to deposit the sale deeds of the aforesaid house and land, with the answering OP with intention to create equitable mortgage thereof, as collateral security to which they with malafide intention did not deposit with the answering OP. The copy of FIR dated 09.03.2007 filed at P.S. Thane, Mumbai while the pay order No.29/320 dated 30.12.2006 was received by the OP No.1 in the month of December 2006 and the same was encashed by the OP No.1 but in spite of the encashment of the pay order neither the Complainants nor OP No.1 deposited the sale deeds with the answering OP for which they were duty bound. The Complainants have been very much negligent in not depositing the title deeds with the answering OP. The answering OP made demand of the original sale deeds but it is wrong to say that the Complainants met with the Bank’s Authority OP No.2. It was the duty of the Complainants to get back the sale deeds from the OP No.1 as soon as pay order was received by OP No.1. It is the answering OP who has been put to financial loss on account of negligence of the Complainants as well as that of the OP No.1 and the amount due in account of Complainants is liable to be recovered by the answering OP from them. Neither the Complainants nor the OP No.1 deposited the sale deed which was in custody of OP No.1. A sum of Rs.8,38,086.61 upto 30.11.2007 is due to answering OP in the account of Complainants to which answering OP is entitled to realize the same from them including the OP No.1 with upto date interest and cost, etc. accrued in account of Complainants. The Complainants as well as OP No.1 have colluded as such they did not deposit the original sale deed with the answering OP due to which the answering OP has suffered a lot. The complaint is not maintainable against the answering OP and the same is liable to be dismissed against the answering OP and the answering OP is entitled for special cost amounting to Rs.10,000.00 payable by the Complainants.
-5-
The Complainants have filed the replication against the WS of OP No.1 & 2.
The Complainant No.1 has filed his affidavit. The OP No.1 has filed the affidavit of Sri A. Jaiswal. The OP No.2 has filed the affidavit of Sri Dev Karan, Branch Manager, Central Bank of India.
Heard Counsel for the Complainants but no one is present from the side of OPs to argue the case, though written arguments were filed by OP No.1. Perused the entire record.
In this case, there is no dispute that the Complainants had taken loan from the OP No.1 for purchasing house and that the sale deeds were mortgaged with the OP No.1. It is also not disputed that the OP No.2 Central Bank took over the loan advanced by OP No.1 and the payment of the entire loan due to OP No.1 was made by OP No.2 to OP No.1. The disputed point according to the Complainants is that the OP No.1 did not return the original sale deeds mortgaged with them despite payment of the entire dues to them and therefore the OP No.1 has committed deficiency in service. On the other hand, the stand of OP No.1 is that the original title deeds of the Complainants were destroyed in a heavy floods in Mumbai and hence they were unable to provide the title deeds and therefore there was no deficiency in service on their part. So, now, the important issue is as to whether title deeds which were mortgaged with the OP No.1 were lost in the floods in Mumbai and hence there is no deficiency on the part of the OP No.1 for not being able to provide original title deeds to the Complainants or not. In this regard, it is clear that it is the duty of the OP No.1 to prove that the documents in question were lost in the floods and that they were not in any way responsible for the loss of the documents. A copy of the certificate of PS, Joshi Marg, Police Thane, Mumbai is the only document on which the OP No.1 is relying to prove that the documents in question were lost in floods but this is not sufficient enough to
-6-
prove that the documents were actually lost in floods. Besides, it does not make mention of both the title deeds of the Complainants as it makes mention of only one title deed, whereas according to the Complainants the two title deeds & agreements of sale were taken by the OP No.1. Therefore, on the basis of this mere certificate issued by police station it cannot be conclusively proved that it is because of the severe floods in Mumbai that the original title deeds were lost. Besides, it is the responsibility of the OP No.1 to keep the documents taken by them as mortgaged papers to keep them in safe custody to provide back to the loanees once the loan is fully paid by them. Therefore, it was the duty of OP No.1 to provide the title deeds to the Complainants once the loan was paid back completely and obviously the OP No.1 has utterly failed in discharging his duty and the justification given by the OP No.1 in this regard is not only untenable but also unjustified. Therefore, the OP No.1 has committed serious deficiency in service in this regard and they are bound to provide the title deeds to the Complainants but as they are unable to do so, hence they have to complete the formalities for getting the duplicate title deeds and to provide them to the Complainants alongwith the certificate that the original title deeds were lost from the custody of the OP No.1. Since the Complainants have been thoroughly harassed in this regard and have suffered a lot because of not being able to provide the original title deeds to OP No.2, therefore they are also entitled to compensation. There are also entitled to the cost of the litigation.
In this case, the OP No.2 has not committed any deficiency in service. Besides the Complainants have not sought any relief from OP No.2, therefore no order is to be passed against OP No.2.
-7-
ORDER
The complaint is partly allowed. The OP No.1 is directed to provide duly certified title deeds alongwith the certificate that the original title deeds were lost from their custody to the complainants.
The OP No.1 is also directed to pay Rs.1,00,000.00 (Rupees One Lakh only) as compensation and Rs.10,000.00 (Rupees Ten Thousand only) as cost of the litigation. The compliance of the order is to be made within a month.
If the payment of the entire amount is not made within a month then the OP No.1 shall pay 9% interest on the above amount.
(Anju Awasthy) (Vijai Varma)
Member President
Dated: 13 April, 2015
