Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1068/2015

Amnadeep Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indian Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Amit K.Bhalla

13 Jun 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  1068

                                                Instituted on:    15.09.2015

                                                Decided on:       13.06.2016

 

Amandeep Kaur wife of Parminder Singh, resident of 51F, Officer Colony, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

 

Indian Bank, Branch Office : Dhuri Road, Sangrur, through its Branch Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite party

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Amit Bhalla, Adv.

For OP.                    :       Shri H.S.Khurmi, Adv.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Smt. Amandeep Kaur, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that the complainant and her husband Parminder Singh availed home loan facility of Rs.9,00,000/- on interest @ 11.25% per annum from the OP vide two accounts number 523725558 and 523725569 in the year 2003 and at that time, the complainant mortgaged their joint sale deed in the bank as per the terms and conditions of the bank. It is further averred that on 5.11.2014, the complainant deposited the loan instalment of Rs.7000/- in account number 523725569, but in the next instalment she came to know that instalment, which she paid in the month of November, 2014 was debited to her credit card instalment without any intimation and permission of the complainant.  It is further averred that Parminder Singh, husband of the complainant cleared his loan account by paying his all dues and when the complainant approached the OP to repay her loan account, then the OP refused to accept the same.  It is further averred that the complainant and her husband also gave application to the OP on 13.5.2015 regarding demanding the original joint registery by saying in the application that the complainant had paid the remaining amount of Rs.12,829/- on 31.3.2015 and a cheque of Rs.13000/- was also paid on 22.4.2015 and the same have been cleared from her account, but the OP refused to return the original sale deed to the complainant. It is further averred that on 29.5.2015, the bank issued a letter regarding the over due amount of credit card i.e. Rs.11860.33 and Rs.48/- were due towards the home loan account. As such, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to return the original sale deed, to pay compensation and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.72,000/-.

 

2.             In reply, it is admitted that the complainant had availed the home loan facility on 16.4.2014 which was secured vide title deed number 963 dated 25.6.1998 and Parminder Singh husband of the complainant was the guarantor for the loan and Parminder Singh also took separate loan facility from the OP.  It is further averred that in addition to this, the complainant and her husband also availed credit card facilities from the OP. At the time of availing the above mentioned facilities, the complainant and her husband entered into an agreement and signed various documents in favour of the OP and clause 11 of the agreement dated 10.3.2014 signed by Parminder Singh state as the borrower further agree that in addition to any general lien or similar right to which bank may be entitled by law, the bank may at any time and without notice to the borrower combine or consolidate all or any of the borrowers accounts and set off all transfer and sum or sums standing to the credit of any one or more of such accounts in or towards satisfactions of any of the borrowers liability to the bank of any other accounts or in any other respect whether such liabilities be actual or contingent, hence the bank has right to apply general line on facilities available by the borrower. It is further averred that the complainant repaid the loan overdue amount, but refused to repay the credit card over due which is Rs.28,247/- on 20.10.2015, as the credit card is linked to the loan account and same reflects in liability of complainant. However, any deficiency in service on the part of the OP has been denied. It is stated further that the complainant did not remit the amount of Rs.7000/- in the loan account number 523725569 on 5.11.2014.

 

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of statement of accounts, Ex.C-2 copy of payment deposit receipt dated 5.11.2014, Ex.C-3 copy of letter dated 29.5.2015, Ex.C-4 copy of application dated 13.5.2015 and Ex.C-5 affidavit and closed evidence.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP  has produced  Ex.OP-1 affidavit, Ex.OP-2 copy of home loan account, Ex.OP-3 copy of loan account of Parminder Singh, Ex.OP-4 statement of account cash credit limit of Amandeep Kaur, Ex.OP-5 copy of statement of account cash credit limit of Parminder Singh, Ex.OP-6 copy of terms of loan agreement, Ex.OP-7 copy of letter dated 13.5.2015, Ex.OP-8 copy of reply dated 29.5.2015 and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties, evidence produced on the file and written submissions and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

5.             After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and on the perusal of the documents placed on record, we find that the main point of controversy in the present complaint is with regard to the returning of the sale deed of the complainant kept as security by the OP in the housing loan account of the complainant.

 

 

6.             The version of the complainant is that she had adjusted her housing loan account with the OP and as such her titled deed kept as security in the said account number 523725569 be returned whereas the version of the OP is that since some amount of credit card dues are outstanding against the complainant, so as per clause 11 of the term loan agreement Ex.OP-6, the OP is not returning the title deed.

 

 

7.             We have gone through the document Ex.OP-2 and Ex.OP-6 and find that the document Ex.OP-2 is the statement of accounts of the housing loan account number 523725569 of the complainant, which shows that the balance outstanding in the account was Rs.6/- only. The OP could have very well closed this account by debiting Rs.6/- from her saving bank account which shows a credit balance of Rs.19/- as per document on record as Ex.OP-4.  The non closer of this account by the OP shows that the OP was not interested in returning the title deed rather they wanted to pressurise the complainant to adjust the credit card dues.  But, then there is no evidence on record that the credit card was issued due to the security of the title deed in question. The clause 11 of the document Ex.OP-6 states that “the borrower further agrees that in addition to any general lien or similar right to which Bank may be paid by law, the Bank may at any time and without notice to the Borrower combine or consolidate all or the borrower’s accounts and set off or transfer any sum or sums standing to the credit of any one or more of such accounts in or towards satisfaction of any of borrower’s liabilities to the Bank on any other accounts or in any other respect whether such liabilities be actual or contingent, primary or collateral and several or joint.”   But, we find that this clause only relates to the recovery of dues on account of housing loan only and its wordings cannot be treated as blanket undertaking given by the complainant.  In this clause, it is no where written that the OP can retain the title deeds, if some other dues are outstanding against the complainant except that of housing loan dues. As such, we find it to be a case of deficiency in service.

 

8.             In view of our above discussion and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the OP is not only deficient in service, but also have indulged in unfair trade practice. So, accordingly, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to release the title deed of the complainant kept as security in her loan account number 523725569 and further to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- being the consolidated amount of compensation on account of mental tension and litigation expenses.   

 

9.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication by the OP. A  copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                June 13, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

                                       

                                                           (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member                                                     

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member