STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

1.    Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Sector 7, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

2.    State Bank of India, through its Regional Manager, Regional Office, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh.

……Appellant/Opposite Parties

V e r s u s

Iqbal Singh s/o Sh.Joga Singh, r/o Village – Bhagat Majra, P.O.  Rani Majra, Tehsil and District – SAS Nagar, Mohali.

              ....Respondent/complainant

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:   JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

Argued by: Sh. K.S. Arya, Advocate for the appellants.

PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

              This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.12.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it accepted the complaint, filed by the complainant (now respondent), and directed the Opposite Parties (now appellants), as under:-

“i)              To return the original sale/title deed of the property of the complainant to him, failing which, to grant a compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- to him.    

ii)       To make payment of a composite amount of Rs.11,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for harassment and litigation expenses.

This order be complied with by the OPs within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, OPs shall be liable to refund the awarded amount to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint, till its realization”.

2.               The facts, in brief, are that the complainant is owner of the property, measuring 10 Marlas, situated in the revenue estate of Village Bhagat Majra, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar, Mohali. In the year 2007, the complainant applied for the grant of housing loan, to the tune of Rs.2 lacs, under the Gram Niwas Yojana, for the construction of house on his plot/property, with Opposite Party No.2 (now appellant no.1). According to the terms and conditions of the Scheme/application form, the loanee was required to submit the supporting documents including the original sale deed/agreement to sell, by way of security/mortgage of the property, for sanctioning the housing loan. After finding the complainant to be eligible, for the grant of housing loan, as per the terms and conditions of the Scheme, Opposite Party  No.2, sanctioned the same, amounting to Rs.2 lacs, on 28.5.2007, vide loan account No.30181074890, in his favour. Sh. O.P. Mehra, Assistant Manager, dealing with the housing loan cases, gave a form, duly filled in his own handwriting, to the complainant, to submit the same, alongwith the original title/sale deed of the property mortgaged, in favour of the bank, by way of security. Accordingly, the complainant deposited his original title/sale deed, alongwith the said form, vide registered letter No.3193 dated 29.5.2007, copy whereof is Annexure C-2. Thereafter, Opposite Party No.2, released the loan amount, in two equal installments of Rs.1 lac each. The complainant repaid the loan amount, as per the equal monthly installments, upto October, 2011, without any default. It was stated that Opposite Party No.2, also issued ‘No Due Certificate’  on 22.11.2011, copy of which is Annexure C-3.  The complainant requested Opposite Party No.2, to release the original title/sale deed of his property, and return the same, to him, immediately, but the same was not returned, despite repeated requests. Ultimately, a written request dated 02.04.2012, copy whereof is Annexure C-4, followed by a reminder dated 03.05.2012, copy whereof is Annexure C-5, were sent, but the Opposite Parties, did not return the original title/sale deed of his property, to the complainant. Opposite Party No.2, vide its communication dated 11.5.2012, copy whereof is Annexure C-6, turned down the request of the complainant, by saying that there was neither any mention of equitable mortgage of the property, in the loan application, nor the complainant submitted the conveyance deed to the bank, and, therefore, the question of returning the same, did not at all arise. The complainant again sent the letter dated 31.05.2012 – Annexure C-7, to the Opposite Parties, with a request to return the sale/title deed of his property. It was further stated that the complainant deposited the original title/sale deed of his property, with the Opposite Parties, in good faith and trust, and, by not returning the same, to him, after the repayment of entire loan amount, and issuance of ‘No Due Certificate’, in his favour, they (Opposite Parties) breached his trust. It was further stated that by not returning the title/sale deed, the Opposite Parties also cheated him. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant,  was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Parties to return the original sale/title deed of his property; pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1 lac, alongwith interest @12% P.A., for mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency, in rendering service; and cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.25,000/-

3.               Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, in their joint written version, stated that the complainant approached them, for the grant of housing loan, to him, to the tune of Rs.2 lacs. It was admitted that the housing loan, in the sum of Rs.2 lacs, was sanctioned and disbursed, in favour of the complainant, on certain terms and conditions, but without equitable mortgage of his property, taking into consideration that he (complainant) was a regular Government employee, having salary account, with them, as also availing of a very small loan.  It was denied that the property, in question, was mortgaged with them, by way of collateral security. It was further stated that the Memorandum of Term Loan Agreement, for housing loan, granted under Gram Niwas Yojana, was executed by the complainant, after understanding and knowing fully well, all the terms and conditions contained therein. It was further stated that none of the documents carried details of creating an equitable mortgage of any property. It was further stated that the land, in question, is situated in a village and the complainant offered to deposit a copy of the Jamabandi/mutation only. It was further stated that the letter, sent through  registered post, regarding the deposit of title deed, bore insufficient postal stamp of Rs.19.50Ps., considering the actual weight thereof. It was further stated that, on receipt of the letters/reminder aforesaid, from the complainant, verification was made and the complainant was apprised, accordingly. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2, nor  they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

4.               In his rejoinder, the complainant stated that, in case, he did not deposit the original title/sale deed, with the Opposite Parties, then why Mr.O.P. Mehra, Branch Manager, had handed over the confirmation letter Annexure C-2, duly filled in, by him. It was further stated that before filing the written reply, the Opposite Parties, tried to settle the matter, personally, and visited his (complainant) house, and got 4 dates for filing reply and evidence, by way of affidavit(s).  It was further stated that, in the absence of original title/sale deed, having been deposited by the complainant, the loan could not have been sanctioned and disbursed, in his favour, in breach of terms and conditions of the scheme. 

5.               The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

6.               After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 

7.               Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellants/ Opposite Parties.

8.               We have heard the Counsel for the appellants, at the admission stage, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 

9.               The Counsel for the appellants, submitted that, no doubt, the complainant applied for housing loan, to the tune of Rs.2 lacs, and the same was granted and disbursed to him, but, he never deposited the title/sale deed, in respect of his property, for creating equitable mortgage. He further submitted that since the complainant was having his salary account, in the bank, and was a regular Govt. employee, there was no necessity of obtaining title deed/sale deed, from him, for creating equitable mortgage,  for the grant and disbursal of loan. He further submitted that since the title deed/sale deed was never deposited, by the complainant, with the Opposite Parties, for the grant and disbursement of loan, the question of return of the same, to him, after he repaid the entire loan amount, and was issued ‘No Demand Certificate’ did not at all arise. He further submitted that even the registered cover, through which the title deed/sale deed, was stated to have been sent, by the complainant, bore insufficient stamp of Rs.19.50Ps., and this fact falsified his stand. He further submitted that, as such, the Opposite Parties, were neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, therefore, being illegal, is liable to be set aside.

10.            Undisputedly, the complainant applied for the grant of housing loan, to the tune of Rs.2 lacs, under the Gram Niwas Yojana, for construction of house, on his plot/property, with Opposite Party  No.2/appellant no.1. There is also, no dispute, with regard to the factum, that the housing loan, in the sum of Rs.2 lacs, on the terms and conditions of the relevant Yojana, was granted and disbursed, in favour of the complainant. It is evident, from the document, at pages 40/90 of the District Forum file, forming part of the application form, Annexure C-1/R-1, that the following documents were required for sanction of loan:-

“Sale deed/Agreement of sale.

Copy of approved drawings of proposed construction/purchase/extension.

NOC under the Provisions of ULC Act, 1976. Original of the same. (Not applicable for Rural and Semi urban areas)

Detailed cost Estimate/Valuation Report from Chartered Engineer/Architect.

In case of conversion of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes, copy of the relative order.

Non Encumbrance Certificate for 13 years.

Salary Certificate and Form 16 of previous year (in case of employees).

IT Returns for the last 2 years (if IT assessee) duly accepted by the ITO.

Allotment letter of Co-operative Society/Housing Board (if applicable), in original.

NOC from society/builder as per enclosed Annexure.

Proof of residence (Identity Card/Passport/Voter Identification Card/Driving Licence).

Tax receipts etc. (Advance IT/Property Tax/Municipal Tax, etc.)

Others”

11.             There are tick marks, against the documents, mentioned at page 90 of Annexure R-1, such as sale deed/agreement of sale, copy of approved drawings of proposed construction/ purchase/extension, NOC under the provisions of ULC Act, 1976 and detailed cost estimate/ valuation report from Chartered Engineer/ Architect. Against the remaining documents mentioned, under the heading ‘documents required’, on the aforesaid page, no tick mark was made. On this very document, there is a declaration, signed by the complainant, wherein, it was stated by him, that the information furnished, in the application form was true, accurate and complete. Even, as per condition no. 2(k) of the Memorandum of Term Loan Agreement – Annexure R-3, it was agreed as under :-

“I/We shall create an equitable mortgage of land/house/flat purchased by me/us out of the amount of the said loan in favour of the Bank and shall execute/cause to be executed such documents as may be required by the Bank.  Where creation of equitable mortgage is not possible, I/we shall create a legal mortgage by execution and registration of proper Deed of Mortgage, of all my rights, title and interest in the flat/house/land purchased by me/us in such form as may be approved by the Bank. I/We shall, if required by the Bank, give such further security as acceptable to the Bank forthwith on demand by the Bank. In case it is not possible to create security by way of mortgage as aforesaid I/we shall forthwith on demand arrange for other collateral securities by way of pledge such as insurance policies, promissory notes issued by the Govt., shares or debentures of the companies, sufficient quality of gold or gold ornaments or other articles or things acceptable to the Bank as security for the loan.”

12.            Not only this, it is evident from Annexure C-2 dated  28.05.2007, sent by the complainant, to Opposite Party No.2, through registered post, copy of the postal receipt whereof is at page 31 of the District Forum file, that he (complainant), had deposited the title deed relating to his property at Bhagat Majra, Village Kharar, Taluka Mohali, against a total loan of Rs.2 lacs. In paragraph number 3 of this letter, it was also mentioned that “the benefit to the Bank of the mortgage by deposit of title deeds, relating to the said property credited, as stated above shall also apply/stand extended to cover the enhanced aggregate limit of Rs.2 lacs, granted to me/us/the concern of Iqbal Singh, by the Bank”. From the aforesaid documents, it was, thus, proved that the title/sale deed of the property, was deposited by the complainant, with the Opposite Parties, when the loan was sanctioned, in his favour. The District Forum was right, in holding so. By not returning the title/sale deed, by the Opposite Parties, after repayment of the entire loan amount and issuance of ‘No Due Certificate’, in favour of the complainant, the Opposite Parties were certainly deficient, in rendering service. The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, being correct, are affirmed.

13.            No doubt, the Counsel for the appellants, submitted that, on the inland letter, through which, the title/sale deed was allegedly sent, stamp of Rs.19.50 Ps., only, was affixed, which was not sufficient. However, the complainant, in his complaint, as also the affidavit submitted by him, by way of evidence, in clear-cut terms, stated that Sh. O.P.Mehra, Assistant Manager, then dealing with the housing loan cases, gave this application form, duly filled in his own handwriting, to him, to submit the same along with the original title/sale deed of the property mortgaged, in favour of the bank, by way of security. Under these circumstances, the possibility could not be ruled out, that the original title/sale deed was given to the Bank Authorities, by hand, by the complainant. No doubt, Sh. O.P. Mehra, Chief Manager has filed an affidavit, in support of the averments, contained in the written statement of the Opposite Parties, yet, he did not specifically deny that he did not fill in the form, in his own handwriting, at the time when he was Assistant Manager and handled the case of the complainant. Even if, it is assumed, though not admitted, for the sake of arguments, that the title/sale deed was not allegedly received by Opposite Party No.2, then, why he did not inform the complainant, after receipt of the letter dated 28.5.2007, that he had not received the said title deed, and that the same was not required, in his case, as he being a regular Government employee was having his salary account in their bank. Not only this, even after the repayment of entire loan and issuance of ‘No Demand Certificate’  dated 22.11.2011 – Annexure C-3, in favour of the complainant, he(complainant) sent a letter by speed post, to the Opposite Parties, on 02.04.2012 – Annexure C-4, wherein, it was in clear-cut terms, stated that the title deed of his property, which was still lying with the bank,  be released and handed over to him. Even, no reply to this letter was sent by the Opposite Parties. In case, actually the complainant had not deposited the title deed, with the Opposite Parties, it was their duty, to inform him that since no title deed was deposited with them, the question of return of the same, did not at all arise.  Thereafter, a reminder – Annexure C-5, on 03.05.2012, through speed post, was sent by the complainant, to the Opposite Parties. Reply dated 11.05.2012 Annexure C-6, was sent by the Opposite Parties, that there was no mention of equitable mortgage of property, in the loan application, nor there was recital in respect of the same, and, as such, the complainant had not submitted the conveyance deed to the bank, and, therefore, they were unable to return the same. This letter appears to have been fabricated, later on. When the Opposite Parties, put in appearance on 03.10.2012 and took dates, for filing reply and evidence, they did not take such a plea. Under these circumstances, the submission of the Counsel for the appellants, to the effect, that title/sale deed of the property, in question, was not deposited, by the complainant, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

14.            The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, to the effect, that since, it was a small amount of loan, which was sanctioned and disbursed, in favour of the complainant, no necessity, by the bank, was felt, to get deposited the title/sale deed of his property, by way of equitable mortgage, especially, when he was having a salary account, being a regular Govt. employee, in the said bank. This plea of the Counsel for the appellants, does not appear to be correct. The bank was required to act, in accordance with the terms and conditions, contained in application, copy whereof is Annexure R-1, which was submitted by the complainant. Not only this, even as per Clause 2(k), of the Memorandum of Term Loan Agreement for Housing Loan, granted under Gram Niwas Yojana, Annexure R-3, executed between the parties, and reproduced above, the complainant was bound to create equitable mortgage of land/house/flat, in favour of the bank and execute the documents, as may be required by the bank. This Memorandum was signed by the complainant, and attested by the witnesses. The complainant and the Opposite Parties were bound by the terms and conditions, contained in the Memorandum aforesaid, as also the application form. Under these circumstances, the bank could not grant loan of the nature, involved in the instant case, without getting deposited the title deed of the property of the complainant, for creation of equitable mortgage. There is nothing, in these documents, that any Officer of the Bank could waive off, any of the conditions, contained in the Memorandum of Agreement or the application form. The Officers/Officials of the bank were bound by the terms and conditions of the Memorandum, as also the terms and conditions, contained, in the application form, submitted by the complainant. Once, there was a written condition, contained in the aforesaid documents, for creating equitable mortgage of the property, and, there is nothing, on the record, that any Officer/Official of the Bank was competent, to waive off the same, the only presumption, which could be drawn, is that the complainant deposited the title/sale deed of his property, in question, at the time of sanction and disbursal of loan amount, in his favour. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

15.            No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellants.

16.            In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

17.            For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.

18.            Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

19.            The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.

February 8, 2013

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Rg