Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

172/2013

S.Manohar, - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIC Housing Finanace ltd, Harrington Chambers, 30/1A, Block_c Abdul Razack, - Opp.Party(s)

J.Vatchala

23 Jun 2016

ORDER

                                                             Complaint presented on  : 17.09.2013

                                                                Order pronounced on  : 23.06.2016

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

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

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,            MEMBER II

 

THURSDAY THE 23rd   DAY OF JUNE 2016

 

C.C.NO.172/2013

 

 

1.S.Manohar,

S/o. Srinivasan,

No.344/A, 13^th Street,

Baba Nagar, Villivakkam,

Chennai – 600 049.

 

2.S.Elango,

S/o. Srinivasan,

No.357, 14^th Street,

Baba Nagar, Villivakkam,

Cchennai – 600 049.

                                                                                        ..... Complainants

 

..Vs..

	1.LIC Housing Finance Ltd., Rep.by its Regional Manager, Harrington Chambers, No.30/1A, Block – Complaint, Abdul Razack – 1st Street, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.   2.The Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040.   3.Mr.Jaqdish Raghavan, S/o Lan. Raghavan, No.162, 8th Street, Near Telephone Exchange, Kolathur, Chennai – 600 099.
	...Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 :19.09.2013

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s. J.Vatchala

Counsel for 1^st Opposite party                :M/s. Ramalingam & Associates

 

Counsel for 2^nd Opposite Party                     : M/s.S.Namasivayam

 

Counsel for 3^rd Opposite Party                      : M/s.S.Kanmani Annamalai         

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.SC., B.L.,

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

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainants  purchased a immovable property situated at plot no.344A and 344 B land ground and 1^st floor, 13^th street, Baba Nagar, Villivakkam, Chennai 49 from the 3^rd Opposite Party/owner. The Complainants purchased the said property by availing loan from the 1^st Opposite Party/LIC. The 3^rd Opposite Party already having 3 loans in respect of the said property with the 2^nd Opposite Party/Bank. To repay the loan the Complainants paid two cheques amounting to Rs.8,23,095/-. When the Complainants demanded title deeds at the time of execution of sale deed, the 3^rd Opposite Party informed that they would get all original documents from the 2^nd Opposite Party after execution of sale. The sale deed was registered on 29.03.2006. The Complainants paid the entire sale consideration to the 3^rd Opposite Party. The Complainants also pre-closed the loan with the 1^st Opposite Party and asked him to return title deeds. The 1^st Opposite Party informed that parent documents are not with them and only with the 2^nd Opposite Party. The 2^nd Opposite Party informed the Complainants that still there is an outstanding loan amount of Rs.50,000/- by the 3^rd Opposite Party and after settling the dues he will return the documents. Even after issuance of the legal notice, the documents were not returned by the 2^nd Opposite Party to the Complainant. Hence the Complainants filed this Complaint for the Deficiency in Service committed by the Opposite Parties, prays to order compensation with cost of the Complaint.

2.WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 1^st  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant availed loan of Rs.10 lakhs each for purchasing the property from the 3^rd Opposite Party. The 3^rd Opposite Party had availed loan with 2^nd Opposite Party, this Opposite Party drawn two cheques  for a total sum of Rs.8,23,095/- in favour of the 2^nd Opposite Party, to close the loan of the 3^rd Opposite Party as requested by the Complainants. The Complainants have pre-closed the loan with this Opposite Party. On verification, it was found that the parent documents with the 2^nd Opposite Party, since the 3^rd Opposite Party had one more loan pending and that is why the parent document not returned by the Bank of Baroda.  As the outstanding loans were not provided properly by the Complainants the loan outstanding of the vendor, the 3^rd Opposite Party herein was not closed and hence parent documents were not released by the 2^nd Opposite Party Bank. Hence there was no negligence or deficiency or service on the part of the 1^st Opposite Party as alleged by the Complainants and prays to dismiss the Complaint.

3. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 2^nd  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The two Complainants wanted to purchase the afore mentioned property through a Housing Loan from the 1^st Opposite Party, LIC Housing Finance Ltd., under a takeover plan from the 2^nd Opposite Party in March 2006, they were duly informed that the total dues is Rs.8, 43,315/- as on 26^th March 2006 in respect of the three loans plus accrued interest from 1^st March 2006 approximately Rs.8,49,300/-. The Complainants on the other hand only paid two loan amounts of Rs.8,23,095/- (579279+243816) as on 28 Feb 2006 through two cheques from the 1^st Opposite Party whereby the accrued interest from 1^st March 2006 on the two loans and the full outstanding on the  third loan of Rs.25962/- remained unpaid as on 31 March 2006. As of November 2011 the total outstanding on three loans stands at Rs.46828/-. In spite of various reminders through phone calls and personal visits the borrower and third Opposite Party herein had not yet repaid the outstanding on the loans. There is no privity of contract between the Complainant and the 2^nd Opposite Party. This Opposite Party had not committed any Deficiency in Service; this Opposite Party prays to dismiss the Complaint.

4.WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 3^rd  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The transaction took place between the Complainants and the 3^rd Opposite Party was the sale of immovable property, the 3^rd Opposite Party is the vendor and the Complainants are the purchaser, there is no service in those transactions. When there was no service in the transaction, the question of deficiency in service not at all arose and the present Complaint is not maintainable within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act and the same is be liable to dismissed. Only after obtaining necessary certificate from the 2^nd Opposite Party the Complainants able to get housing loan from the first Opposite Party for purchase of the immovable property from the 3^rd Opposite Party. Having received necessary certificate from the 3^rd Opposite Party, and based on the said certificate purchased the demand drafts in the name of the 2^nd Opposite Party towards the clearance of the loan availed by the 3^rd Opposite Party and completed necessary sale transaction in the year 2006 itself, after lapse more than six years now making unnecessary allegations as against the 3^rd Opposite Party. Even in the sale deeds executed by the 3^rd Opposite Party and in the document itself reflect that this Opposite Party had handed over and delivered all the title deed documents pertaining to the property to the Complainants on execution of the sale deed during the year 2006 itself. On verifying the necessary certificate obtained from the 2^nd Opposite Party with regard to the 3^rd Opposite Party’s housing loan and documents in custody of the 2^nd Opposite Party, the first Opposite Party allowed the Complainants and 3^rd Opposite Party to proceed with sale transaction. There is no service is involved in the transaction between the Complainants and 3^rd Opposite Party, the question of Deficiency in Service and compensation does not arise prays to dismiss the Complaint.

5. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether the Complainant is a Consumer?

          2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

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

               

 

 

6. POINT:1

          The admitted facts are that the Complainants purchased the immovable property owned by the 3^rd Opposite Party situated in plot No.344A, 344B with land ground and 1^st floor of the building, 13^th Street, Baba Nagar, Villivakkam, Chennai- 39, from the 3^rd Opposite Party by availing loan from the 1^st Opposite Party and the 3^rd Opposite Party already having 3 loans in respect of the said property with the 2^nd Opposite Party.

          7. The transactions between the Complainant relates to a sale transaction with respect to movable property and for which along  the Complainant paid consideration and not for availing any service. These view also supported by judgment of the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Commission, Chennai in CDJ 2011 TNSCDRC 086 dated 08.04.2011. The 2^nd Opposite Party Boroda Bank who was holding title deeds of the 3^rd Opposite Party and he has also not provided any service to the Complainant. The 1^st Opposite Party is a financial to purchase the property by the Complainant. Since the transactions relates to outright sale not connected with the service, the contention of the Complainant that is not a Consumer is accepted.

8. POINT NO:2

          The Complainants purchased the property under Ex.A1, Ex.A2 sale deed from the 3^rd Opposite Party/Owner. The total sale of construction of Rs.22,000/-.  Each Complainant paid a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- to the 3^rd Opposite Party and registered sale  deed separately and their favour to purchase the  said property each Complainant availed loan of Rs.10,00,000/- each from 1^st Opposite Party. The 1^st Opposite Party as directed by the Complainants he had paid a sum of Rs.5,79,279/- and another sum of Rs.2,43,816/- and thus a total a sum of Rs. 8,23,095/- paid to the 2^nd Opposite Party and the balance amount paid to the complaiants.

          9. The 3^rd Opposite Party availed three loans from the 2^nd Opposite Party/Bank in respect of his property which was sold to the Complainants and said loans availed from him. The Complainants themselves credit to close the barrowed by the 3^rd Opposite Party from the 2^nd Opposite Party Ex.B2 & Ex.B5 certificate establishes that there were three loans in respect of the property. The 3^rd Opposite Party also handed over the said certificate to the Complainants even after nothing that three loans were spending  as per the certificate, the Complainants asked the 1^st Opposite Party/LIC to redeem only second loans and accordingly the 1^st Opposite Party  sent two Demand Draft to the 2^nd Opposite Party for a sum of Rs.8,23,095/-. The third loans still spending and the same were cleared by the Complainants of the 1^st Opposite Party. The 1^st Opposite Party also credited he has not cleared the third loan. Therefore, the 2^nd Opposite Party has not returned the parent document to the 1^st Opposite Party are to the Complainant in view of that the loan is spending is sustainable. It is dispute between the Complainants and the 3^rd Opposite Party. The Complainants are the purchase should have insured that the entire loan have been cleared either by himself or by the 3^rd Opposite Party before entering the sale deed. The Complainants have not taken care to verify documents whether there is no due in respect of the property and to ascertain with the title of the property is free encumbrance. Considering relates on immovable property and the Complainants have not taken care purchasing the property. We hold that the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 have not committed any Deficiency in Service.

 

 

10. POINT NO:3

          Since the opposite parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief in this Complaint and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed without cost.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.     

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 23^rd   day of June  2016.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANTS:

Ex.A1 dated 29.03.2006	Sale Deed executed by 3rd Opposite Party in favour of 1st Complainant in Doc.No.1441 of 2006 before the SRO at Konnur
Ex.A2 dated 29.03.2006	Sale Deed executed by 3rd Opposite Party in favour of 2nd  Complainant in Doc.No.1440 of 2006 before the SRO at Konnur
Ex.A3 dated 10.03.2006	Sanction letter issued by the 1st Opposite Party to the 1st Complainant
Ex.A4 dated 29.03.2006	Letter of Loan advanced to the Complainant by the 1st Opposite Party
Ex.A5 dated 29.03.2006	Letter of Loan advanced to the Complainant by the 1st Opposite Party
Ex.A6 dated 27.08.2010	Letter issued by the 1st Opposite Party to the 1st Complainant regarding the receipt of title deeds
Ex.A7 dated 28.01.2011	Letter issued by the 1st Opposite Party to the 2nd  Complainant regarding the receipt of title deeds
Ex.A8 dated 04.03.2011	Letter issued by the 1st Opposite Party to the  2nd  Opposite Party
Ex.A9 dated NIL	List of Documents deposited with the 2nd Opposite Party by the 3rd Opposite Party
Ex.A10 dated 02.04.2012	Legal Notice issued by the Complainants to the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 by RPAD receipt with acknowledgement card
Ex.A11 dated 23.08.2012	Reply notice issued by the 2nd Opposite Party to complainants
Ex.A12 dated 24.05.2012	Notice issued by Tamil Nadu Consumer Protection Organization – Chennai to 1st Opposite Party
Ex.A13 dated 24.05.2012	Notice issued by Tamil Nadu Consumer Protection Organization – Chennai to 2nd  Opposite Party
Ex.A14 dated 24.05.2012	Notice issued by Tamil Nadu Consumer Protection Organization – Chennai to 3rd  Opposite Party
Ex.A15 dated 28.06.2012	Notice issued by Tamil Nadu Consumer Protection Organization – Chennai to the Chief Manager of Bank of Baroda, Anna Nagar, Chennai
Ex.A16 dated 04.06.2012	Reply Notice issued by the 2nd Opposite Party to the Tamil Nadu Consumer Protection Organisation – Chennai
Ex.A17 dated 07.06.2012	Reply Notice eby the 1st Opposite Party to the Tamil Nadu Consumer Protection Organisation – Chennai.
Ex.A18 dated 17.09.2011	Letters under RTI Act from 1st Complaint to 2nd Opposite Party
Ex.A19 dated 13.10.2011	Reply from 2nd Opposite Party to the 1st Complainant

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 2^nd  OPPOSITE PARTY :

Ex.B1 dated  NIL                       Copy of Power of Attorney

Ex.B2 dated  26.03.2006                     Letter dt 26.03.2006 from the 2^nd Opposite   

                                                       Party mentioning outstanding amount of 3 Loans

 

Ex.B3 dated NIL                       Statements of Accounts showing Interest amount

                                                      dues for two loans for March 2006 and total dues

                                                  for the 3^rd Loan amount

 

Ex.B4 dated 23.09.2011                     Letters dt 23.09.2011 and 23.11.2011 mentioning

                                                  the total outstanding due on 3 loans

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 3^rd  OPPOSITE PARTY:

 

Ex.B5 dated NIL                       Proof Affidavit filed by the 3^rd Opposite Party

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 1^st   OPPOSITE PARTY:

 

Ex.B6 dated  23.03.2006                    Letter of sanction

 

Ex.B7 dated 25.03.2006                     Letter of sanction

 

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT