ORDER                                    Dated:  30-01-2017

Mohd. Anwar Alam, President

1. The complainant has filed this complaint on 05-11-2015 and alleged that he had applied for a home loan and completed all the formalities for the purpose of getting loan. OPs sanctioned the home loan vide house loan A/c no. LBDEL00000529178 in favour of the complainant.  The complainant was to pay   a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- within a period of 15 years from the date of finance and this sum includes its interests and other charges on the amount financed by OPs. The complainant has been acting as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement.  The complainant  has made the repayment of the loan amount to the bank against the sanctioned amount till date.  Complainant received a notice dated 24.01.2014 under the Securitization And Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act for initiations of the proceedings against the complainant under the said  act without any cause and reason as the complainant has already made the payment of the sanctioned loan amount.  During the pendency of the complaint, the complaint was referred to the Mediation Cell, Tis Hazari courts, Delhi and before the mediation center it was agreed that the complainant shall make the payment of Rs. 6,10,000/- to the OPs and the OPs shall close all the proceedings initiated by OP under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act and returned/ release the original titled deed to the complainant of the property bearing no. IInd B/82, PNB Road, Sector –II, Vaishali , Ghaziabad UP to the complainant.  The documents of the property bearing no. IInd B /82 PNB road, Sector II Vaishali Ghaziabad UP are still lying in the custody of the OPs and they are intentionally not returning/ releasing the original title deed of the property bearing no. IInd B/82, PNB Road, Sector –II, Vaishali Ghaziabad to the complainant even after so many visitis of the complainant in the office of OP.  Hence the act of OPs is totally unjustified and comes under unfair trade practices and complainant prayed to direct OP to pay a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- as compensation for the harassment and Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for wastage of time of the complainant. Complainant further prayed to direct OP handover the original title deed to him.
2. In reply, OP alleged that there is no deficiency of service on  its part as complainant has failed to adhere the terms and conditions of the mediation order dated 19.09.2014 and complainant has also  failed to pay the agreed amount of settlement within the prescribed time and as such the complainant cannot claim any benefits of the order dated 19.09.2014. OP denied rest of the allegations made in the complaint and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
3. The complainant has filed rejoinder to the written statement and denied the objections made by the OPs and supported his complaint.
4. In support of  his complaint complainant filed his own affidavit along with documents i.e. copy of  order passed by mediation centre dated 19.09.2014 (Ex. C-1) , copy of title deed (Ex. C-2) , notice  dated 24.01.2014  (Ex. C-3).copy of managers cheque  (Ex. C-4)
5.  In support of reply OP1  filed affidavit of Akriti Mishra , Authorised Representative along with documents i.e. reply (Ex. DW-1)
6. Both the parties filed their written arguments.
7. We have heard the arguments and considered the evidence led by the parties and their written and oral arguments.  In this case points to be considered are as under:-

(a) Whether complainant is a consumer?

 (b) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?

(c) Relief?

    8.  In reply OPs did not deny the home loan sanctioned by OPs to the complainant hence complainant is a consumer.

     9.   OPs also admitted that the dispute between the complainant and OPs was resolved in the Delhi Mediation Center, Tis Hazari Courts , Delhi on 19.09.2014 in case no. 155/2014 as mutually agreed between the parties the complainant has to pay a sum of Rs. 6,10,000/- by way of  DD in favour of ICICI Bank  on or before 24.09.2014 against the loan account on the flat no. B-2/82, Sector 2 Vaishali Ghaziabad U.P.  After receiving the aforesaid settlement amount bank was to close the loan account and issue NOC and original title deed of the aforesaid property to the complainant within 21 working days. In case OP failed to return original title deed the complainant shall on liberty to take appropriate legal remedy before appropriate forum. It was further agreed that on the receipt of the aforesaid settlement amount by the OPs the complainant will withdraw the present complaint and OPs shall  stop the proceedings of SURFAESI Act. Complainant Raj Kumar Gupta deposed that in compliance of the order passed by Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts Delhi he has made a payment of Rs. 6,10,000/- to OP by way of manager’s cheque dated 23.09.2014 in favour of ICICI Bank (Ex. C-4).  This cheque amount was not denied by the OPs . OPs only contended that complainant has failed to pay the agreed amount within prescribed time. So complainant cannot claim any benefit of the above order dated 19.09.2014. It is pertinent to mention herein that Managers Cheque dated 23.09.2014 was issued in favour of ICICI Bank for Rs. 6,10,000/- only by the HDFC Bank hence the complainant has released the settled amount in favour of the OP within the prescribed limit of the order passed by the mediation center. 

     10. Looking to the above facts and circumstances we are of the considered opinion that complainant has complied the order dated  19.09.2014 passed by Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari courts, New Delhi in the matter titled Raj Kumar Gupta V/s ICICI Bank & Anrs bearing case no. 155/14 but OP failed to comply the terms of settlement and order of the forum which proves deficiency on the part of OP. It is also pertinent to mention herein that OP was supposed to stop the proceedings under SURFAESI Act as per the order dated 19.09.2014 by the Delhi Mediation Center, Tis Hazari courts, Delhi but these proceedings were not stopped by the OP. Therefore, we directed OP as under:

           (a) To return mortgage documents to the complainant forthwith.

            (b)  To pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant for mental  

                  harassment and agony.

           (c ) To pay Rs. 5,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant.

    11.The above order will be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt  of order failing which an interest @ 12 % p.a. will be payable on the above amount.

12. Both the parties will bear their own cost.

13. Copy of this order be made available to the parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to record room.

Announced on this _______________