Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/318/2018

K.Valivittan - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Home Finance Co - Opp.Party(s)

Yurendra Kumar

12 Feb 2020

ORDER

                                                           Complaint presented on: 31.03.2011

                                                               Order pronounced on:  27.02.2019

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT:  TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL -  PRESIDENT

 

TMT.P.V.JEYANTHI B.A., MEMBER - I

 

THURSDAY  THE 27^th   DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020

 

C.C.NO.318/2018

 

 

Dr.K.Valivittan,

C 263 TNHB Colony,

Tambaram Sanitorium,

Chennai – 47.

                                                                                        …..Complainant

 

 ..Vs..

 

Manager,

ICICI Home Finance Co.,

#:93 1^st Floor,

Santhome High Road,

Chennai – 28.

 

 

.....Opposite Party

Counsel for Complainant                       : Mr. V.Balaj, V.Yurendra Kumar,

                                                                   L.Rameshbabu

 

Counsel for    opposite party                   : M/s.Sai Krishnan Associates

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant and his wife had availed a home loan from the opposite party of loan amount Rs.3,40,000/- repayable in EMI of 60 months @ Rs.7,619/- with interest payable @ 10.75%. The complainant was regular in payment of EMI, had paid all the dues towards the loan. The complainant sought for return of his original documents in opposite party’s custody who gave evasive replies. After much persuasion, on 24.06.2006 the opposite party sent letter to the complainant to come and collect the documents. Despite such letter the opposite party took their own time and complainant collected the documents on 10.01.2007 except the original sale deed dated 24.08.2001 registered as doc.no.2049/2001 SRO Pammal.  The complainant’s constant demanded by letter dated 21.08.2005 and 28.09.2006 for return of original sale deed. But the opposite party has given evasive answers. The said sale deed remains elusive till date, despite complainant calling and meeting several opposite party’s officials by calls and visits. On 16.01.2008 legal notice was sent to the opposite party which was received but not replied or acted upon till date. Hence this complaint is filed for deficiency in service.

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE   OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          Inspite of diligent search made, the opposite party could not trace out  the original sale deed dated 28.04.2001 in their office. Hence to help the complainant even now this opposite party is ready and willing to furnish a certified copy of the sale deed dated 28.04.2001 along with an indemnity bond and an affidavit of loss just to help the complainant. But the complainant has refused the same and has filed this complaint. As such there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The claim of the complainant is high and excessive and without any supportive documents.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether the complaint is Barred by Limitation?

2. Whether the second complaint filed for the same cause of action is

     correct?

 

3.Wherther the complaint filed is within the jurisdictional limit.?

          4. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

          5. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

4. POINT NO : 1 TO 3:        

The complainant and his wife have obtained home loan from opposite party for an amount of Rs.3,40,000/-  repayable  in EMI of 60 months  @ Rs.7,619/-. The loan sanction intimation is Ex.A1. Ex.A2 is the letter addressed to the complainant by opposite party confirming the loan repayment. Ex.A3  dated  24.06.2006 is again a confirmation letter for the loan repayment in full by the complainant and thereby the complainant was requested to collect the documents. As stated in Ex.A3 the complainant approached the opposite party for the return of  documents  which was entrusted with the bank at the time of obtaining loan but he could not succeed in getting back the original sale deed of the flat dated  24.08.2001  belonging to him particularly.  Ex.A5 letter dated 21.08.2006 reveals that the original sale deed of the flat belonging to the complainant which was collected directly by the bank officer from the concerned registration office was not returned inspite of several request  made by the complainant to the opposite party and he was compelled to wait for some more time and it was repeated for several times.

05. Under Ex.A6 reminder was sent by the complainant to opposite party  regarding the return of document and copy of acknowledgement is attached with the letter. Ex.A7 dated 16.01.2008  is the legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party, the Head Office and it’s registered office with acknowledgement by opposite party. The earlier complaint copy is filed as Ex.A8 by the complainant and it is explained at the time of argument on the side of the complainant and also  endorsed as not prosecuted.  Hence the present complaint is filed. The complaint is being filed by the complainant for the release of original sale deed. It is an admitted fact by the opposite party in their written version that inspite of diligent search, they were unable to locate that particular original sale deed which was kept in the custody of the opposite party bank.  Since the opposite party had failed to return back the document of title of complainant’s property till date and due to its inordinate delay the complaint is filed for deficiency in service by opposite party and also compensation for mental agony.

06. The opposite party has raised the following objections as to the filing of the complaint such as the complaint is not filed within a period of limitation and the complaint being the second complaint without disclosing the earlier complaint and hence it is liable to be dismissed. The complainant ought to have filed the complaint against the bank from where he obtained the loan. Further opposite party had  also admitted that  after due diligent search they were unable to locate the original sale deed dated 28.04.2001 in their office and further contended that  just to help the complainant opposite party had offered  to give the complainant a certified copy of the sale deed along with an indemnity bond  and  an affidavit of loss but it was refused by the complainant. Hence it is argued on the side opposite party that there is no deficiency in service on their part.

07. The  complaint was prepared earlier but it resulted in non-prosecution as per the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant  and also as per their endorsement on the exhibits. The opposite party had protested regarding the present complaint which is being filed without even explaining the filing of the earlier complaint.  However the copy of the earlier complaint is filed as Ex.A8 to prove their genunity and was argued elaborately at the time of argument and also the opposite party had not proved by filing any receipt of the copy of the earlier complaint.  Hence the complainant’s contention is accepted as such. Since the earlier complaint was not prosecuted there is no bar for filing the second complaint for the same cause of action.  On perusal of records earlier to the complaint there was a petition filed in CMP144/2012 to condone the delay in filing the complaint  and the delay  was excused as per the order in CMP 145/2012  and  subsequently this complaint was taken on file according to law.  There is no revision preferred by opposite party admittedly. Therefore this complaint is properly taken on file after the delay was condoned and then numbered properly and also dealt according to law.  Home loan was sanctioned by the opposite party and all correspondence on record proves that the address of the opposite party and the transactions took place within the limit of the territorial jurisdiction of the forum. Hence the complaint is filed with the jurisdictional limit and points No 1 to 3 are answered accordingly.

08. POINT NO .4:

The opposite party had not disputed the fact regarding their failure to return the original sale deed of the flat owned by the complainant.  Admittedly the bank had misplaced the original sale deed dated 28.04.2001 of the flat owned by the complainant. The opposite party had stated in their written version that they have offered to give a certified copy of the said sale deed along with an indemnity bond and an affidavit of loss but the complainant has refused  the same. But the said contention was denied by the complainant and also had not been substantiated by any letter or documentary proof by opposite party.  Actually original sale dead is a title document and it is a valuable one. The opposite party is duty bound to keep the sale deed in safe custody and duly return to the complainant after repayment of the loan. The same was not followed by opposite party and is apparently seen that opposite party had been negligent and deficient in rendering services to the complainant. Accordingly point No.4 is decided and answered.

09. POINT NO .5:

It is decided in point no. 4 that the opposite party had committed deficiency in service and as argued by the learned counsel for the complainant it is to be accepted that a property for which no original sale deed is available, it would certainly be not possible to sell it at the prevailing rate in case if one prefers to dispose the property or else value is reduced if one wants to mortgage the property. In such a way original sale deed has got its own value. The complainant suffered mental agony and stress due to non-compliance for a long period from 19.09.2006 and even after the complainant’s repeated request is to be accepted by this forum under the said circumstances.  Therefore opposite party is directed to obtain a certified copy of the sale deed of the flat of the complainant dated 28.04.2001 along with an indemnity bond. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case this forum is of the view that it would be appropriate to order Rs. 3,00,000/- for deficiency in service and for mental agony caused to the complainant besides a sum  of  Rs.5,000/-  for costs.                      

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to obtain a certified copy of the sale deed dated 24.08.2001 (Doc.No.2049/2001) of the flat of the complainant from the concerned SRO and to issue the same to the complainant along with an indemnity bond  mentioning about the loss of original document and also to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) to the complainant  as compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) for costs.

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of the payment.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 27^th  day of February 2020.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 23.08.2001                   Copy of Sanction Letter

Ex.A2 dated 19.06.2006                   Copy of Opposite party’s letter

Ex.A3 dated 24.06.2006                   Copy of Opposite party’s letter

Ex.A4 dated 10.01.2007                   Copy of Complainant’s letter

Ex.A5 dated 21.08.2006                   Copy of Complainant’s letter

Ex.A6 dated 28.09.2006                   Copy of Complainant’s letter

Ex.A7 dated 16.01.2008                   Legal Notice with acknowledgement due

Ex.A8 dated 19.12.2009                   Complaint Copy

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE   OPPOSITE PARTY:

 

                                       ….. NIL ……

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT