Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/288/2010

Som Nath Kapoor S/o Lal Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI BAnk - Opp.Party(s)

Tilak Raj

01 Sep 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                               Complaint No. 288  of 2010.

                                                                                               Date of institution: 30.03.2010

                                                                                               Date of decision: 01.09.2016

Som Nath Kapoor  aged abut 60 years sonof Sh. Lal Chand, resident of House No. 499, Gali No. 4, Azad Nagar, Yamuna Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. ICICI Bank Ltd. Branch Office Gobindpuri Road, Yamuna Nagar through its Branch Manager.
2. ICICI Bank Ltd. Regd. Office “Landmark” Race Course Circle, Vadodra-390007, through its Chairman.
3. ICICI Bank Ltd. Regional Office, SCO No. 129-130, Ist Floor, Sector-9-C, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager.
4. Revinder Arora, Credit Manager, I.C.I.C.I, HFC Ltd. SCO No. 28-29, Leela Bhawan Patiala. 
5. Web Tech Marketing, through its Prop. Sh. Anuj Gupta, Civil Line, Jagadhri.

 

                                                                                                                                                    …Respondents.

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG PRESIDENT, 

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present:  Sh. Tilak Raj Kapoor, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

                Sh. K.K.Gupta, Advocate, counsel for OPs No.1 to 4.

                Sh. M.L.Bansal, Advocate, counsel for Op No.5.

             

 

ORDER

1                      Complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986 amended up to date.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant obtained a loan of amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- from the respondents No. 1 to 4 (hereinafter referred as OPs No.1 to 4) through OP No.5 under re-finance scheme of his house situated at Gali No.4, Azad Nagar, Yamuna Nagar. At the time of sanction and disbursement of the said loan, the complainant mortgaged his house by depositing original title deed alongwith all other necessary documents and also executed the loan agreement. After that OPs Bank disbursed the loan amount to the complainant vide cheque No. 477994 dated 21.09.2004 amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/-. It has been further mentioned that OPs Bank wrongly, deliberately with wrong intention started to deducting the installments since 02.11.2004 whereas no loan was disbursed to the complainant till 02.11.2004 which is evident from the copy of pass book Annexure C-2. It has been further mentioned that the complainant has been requesting the OPs No.1 to 4 to issue him the list of documents lying with the OPs Bank in lieu of said loan of the complainant but the OPs Bank kept mum on the matter for more than 2 years for the reasons best known to official of the bank and till date no list of documents has been supplied to the complainant.  Rather on 17.06.2009 i.e. after 5 years of the disbursement of the abovesaid loan, the OPs issued a false and frivolous notice to the complainant in which ops bank has asked to the complainant to deposit the original title deed with bank. The letter was duly replied by the complainant vide letter dated 02.07.2009. The complainant requested so many times to the OPs to supply the list of documents mortgaged with the bank  including the original title deed because he wants to settle the account as full and final but till date no list of documents/ mortgage with the Bank was supplied to the complainant by the OPs Bank. As such, there is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Lastly, prayed for directing the OPs Bank to return the original seed deed/ title deed of the complainant and to receive back their entire outstanding amount and further direct the OPs Bank to settle the entire loan amount due with the complainant on one time settlement basis and to pay compensation and litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs No.1 to 4 appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable; complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by his own act and conduct; there is no relationship of consumer and supplier. The complainant has concealed the true and material facts. The true facts are that complainant wanted to purchase the house after taking the facility of loan from the OPs Bank  on the basis of agreement to sell and the OPs No.1 to 4 bank sanctioned a loan of Rs. 1, 50,000/- for purchasing the said house and an agreement was executed between the parties. It has been further submitted that complainant had assured to submit the original sale deed of purchased house to the bank within stipulated time but the complainant has failed to submit the original sale deed of the purchased house to the Bank and further failed to make the repayment of the said loan amount as per terms and conditions of the agreement. The OPs Bank has also sent a letter dated 13.06.2009 for demanding to submit the original security documents i.e. sale deed but even then the complainant neither submitted the original sale deed of the purchased house nor paid the outstanding towards the complainant and a sum of Rs.1,37,887/as on 29-06-2010 are outstanding towards the complainant  and now with malafide intention filed the present complaint and on merit controverted the plea taken in the complaint and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint qua ops 1 to 4.

4.                     OP No.5 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable; no locus standi; complaint is false, complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct and on merit it has been admitted that complainant approached the OP No.5 and he assisted the complainant to complete his documents for obtaining the loan and helped him for the completion of his loan case file. Rest contents of the complaint have been specifically denied. It has been further stated that Op No.5 has no documents of the complainant with him. The complainant has borrowed the loan from the OPs No.1 to 4 Bank and deposited his documents with the OPs No.1 to 4 Bank of his own and as such there was no occasion for the complainant to make any alleged request to OP No.5 for return the documents the Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint being no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of ops no.5.

5.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX and photo copies of documents such as:- copy of cheque dated 21.09.2004 as Annexure C-1, copy of pass book as Annexure C-2, copy of sale deed as Annexure C-3, copy of letter dated 13.06.2009 issued by the OP Bank as Annexure C-4, Postal envelope as Annexure C-5, Copy of reply to the legal notice as Annexure c-6, Copy of postal receipts as Annexure C-7, C-7A and C-7B, Envelope alongwith acknowledgement as Annexure C-8 and C-9, Photo copy of cheque as Annexure C-10, copy of letter dated 18.03.2011 as Annexure C-11 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

6.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs No.1 to 4 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Vikas Branch Manager as Annexure RX and documents such as photo copy of loan agreement as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of cheque as Annexure R-2, Photo copy of letter dated 13.06.2009 as Annexure R-3, photo copy of civil suit plaint as Annexure R-4, Account statement as Annexure R-5, Copy of demand letter as Annexure R-6 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs No.1 to 4.

7.                     Counsel for the OP No.5 closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.5 without tendering any evidence.

8.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very carefully and minutely.

9.                     It is not disputed that complainant obtained a loan to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- under re-finance scheme against  his house situated at Gali No. 4, Azad Nagar, Yamuna Nagar from the OPs No.1 to 4 Bank through Op No.5 who is business promoter of the OPs No.1 to 4 Bank, which was repayable in 80 monthly installments of Rs. 2612/- per month. It is also not disputed that amount of loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- was disbursed to the complainant vide cheque No. 477994 dated 21.09.2004. No dispute in regard to outstanding towards the complainant of Rs.1,37,887/- as on 29-06-2010, interest, installment amount and terms and conditions of the agreement executed between the parties has been alleged in the present complaint by the complainant. The only grievances/ version of the complainant as mentioned in para No.6 of the present complaint is that ops bank has not supplied any list of documents lying deposited with the OP Bank in lieu of said loan to the complainant till date despite request from last 2 years. Further, it has been alleged that Ops No.1 to 4 Bank has issued a false and frivolous notice dated 13.06.2009 (Annexure R-3) after 5 years of disbursement of the loan amount to the complainant in which the OPs Bank has asked to deposit the original sale deed. This act and conduct of the OPs Bank shows that the OPs Bank have misplaced the original sale deed/ title deed of the house of complainant and now with a view to fill up the lacunae and to save skin, this letter dated 13.06.2009 has been issued. It has been further stated that Bank cannot give loan to the borrower without taking the original title deed as security. So, the demand of OPs No.1 to 4 Bank for original title deed vide letter dated 13.06.2009 is baseless and prayed for acceptance of the complaint. Counsel for the complainant referred the case law titled as C.L.Khanna Versus Dena Bank IV(2005) CPJ page 137 (NC) wherein it has been held that Banking services- title deeds pledged for obtaining loan, lost- Complainant in financial crisis, compelled to handover title deed of other property- Title deeds pledged with bank not returned in spite of repeated requests- Complainant could not clear outstanding was forced to maintain loan account and paid interest and installments- Complainant approached Banking Ombudsman, could not get compensation, filed complaint before Commission- Contention, complaint is time barred, not acceptable because Bank trying to get back the documents, as no point of time refused to deliver it to complainant- Deficiency in service on the part of bank proved- Complaint allowed- Directions given. Further counsel for the complainant referred the case law titled as A Farook and others Versus Syndicate Bank, Melamury Palakkad and another, 2015 (2) CPJ Page 44 and 2015(1) CPR page 16.

10                    On the other hand, counsel for the OPs No.1 to 4 argued that the complainant has failed to submit the original title deed/ sale deed of the purchased house to the Bank and also failed to make the repayment of loan amount as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. A letter dated 13.06.2009 was sent by the Ops Bank to the complainant for demanding the original title security documents i.e. sale deed, but the complainant has neither submitted the original title deed nor has paid the payment of monthly installments. A sum of Rs. 1,37,837/-, as on 29.06.2010 was outstanding towards the complainant and now with malafide intention to avoid his liability, he has filed the present complaint which is false, baseless and groundless and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

11                    After hearing both the parties at length, we are of the considered view that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable as no cause of action has arisen to the complainant because as per agreement, the loan amount was repayable in 80 monthly installments and still  an amount of Rs.1,37,887/- as on 29-06-2010, was outstanding towards the complainant.  If we presumed for the sake of argument that original sale deed was with the bank even then how the complainant can ask to release the sale deed prior to make the repayment of the entire loan amount. Further, the complainant has failed to convince this Forum that complainant had ever deposited the title deed with the OPs Bank. No such documentary cogent evidence has been placed on file from which this Forum presumed that in fact the original title deed had been deposited with the OPs. Mere that OPs Bank had released the house loan amount to the complainant, so, there is presumption that complainant had deposited title deed with the OPs Bank is not tenable. It may be negligence or carelessness on the part of the OPs Bank but the complainant cannot take the benefits of the same. 

12                    Furthermore, the version of the complainant is totally contradictory as the complainant has himself admitted in para No.5 of his complaint that he had deposited all the documents with the original sale deed with the OP No.5 i.e. Web Tech Marketing (business promoter of OPs No.1 to 4) and the cheque of Rs. 1,50,000/- was also issued by the OP No.5 whereas in para no.3 of complaint he has mentioned that he had deposited the original sale deed with the ops 1 to 4 bank.  In the absence of any cogent evidence, in regard to whether he deposited the original title deed with the OP No.5 and if yes, than further the OP No.5 deposited the same with the OPs No.1 to 4 Bank, how the complainant can blame to the ops 1 to.4 that original sale deed had been lost by the ops Bank.    Further, the version of the complainant that he had requested for the last more than 2 years to the OPs Bank to issue the list of documents is also not tenable as any such application or any request letter has not been placed on file. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant on 30.03.2010 whereas as per account statement Annexure R-5, it is clearly evident that loan amount was sanctioned and disbursed in the year 2004 to the complainant and further the account has been declared as NPA since 01.06.2007(Annexure R-5), so the complaint of the complainant is also time barred.

13                    The laws cited by the counsel for the complainant are not disputed but not helpful to facts of the present complaint. In the present complaint, complainant has failed to prove that he had ever handed over the original sale deed to the ops Bank whereas ops bank has taken special plea that no original sale deed had been deposited by the complainant despite letter and many requests.  Such type of matters i.e. where elaborate evidence is required, cannot be decided in summery nature before Fora and for that civil court is the best platform.    

14                    In the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.  However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the Civil Court, if so advised.  Exemption of time spent before this Forum is granted in terms of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Luxmi Engineering Works vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute (1995)III SCC page 583. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in the open court:01.09.2016.

 

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                     PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                                      (S.C. SHARMA)

                                                                                       MEMBER