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)

    2nd 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, 13th Street,

Baba Nagar, Villivakkam,

Chennai – 600 049.

 

2.S.Elango,

S/o. Srinivasan,

No.357, 14th 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 1st Opposite party                :M/s. Ramalingam & Associates

 

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

 

Counsel for 3rd 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 1st floor, 13th street, Baba Nagar, Villivakkam, Chennai 49 from the 3rd Opposite Party/owner. The Complainants purchased the said property by availing loan from the 1st Opposite Party/LIC. The 3rd Opposite Party already having 3 loans in respect of the said property with the 2nd 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 3rd Opposite Party informed that they would get all original documents from the 2nd Opposite Party after execution of sale. The sale deed was registered on 29.03.2006. The Complainants paid the entire sale consideration to the 3rd Opposite Party. The Complainants also pre-closed the loan with the 1st Opposite Party and asked him to return title deeds. The 1st Opposite Party informed that parent documents are not with them and only with the 2nd Opposite Party. The 2nd Opposite Party informed the Complainants that still there is an outstanding loan amount of Rs.50,000/- by the 3rd 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 2nd 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 1st  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant availed loan of Rs.10 lakhs each for purchasing the property from the 3rd Opposite Party. The 3rd Opposite Party had availed loan with 2nd Opposite Party, this Opposite Party drawn two cheques  for a total sum of Rs.8,23,095/- in favour of the 2nd Opposite Party, to close the loan of the 3rd 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 2nd Opposite Party, since the 3rd 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 3rd Opposite Party herein was not closed and hence parent documents were not released by the 2nd Opposite Party Bank. Hence there was no negligence or deficiency or service on the part of the 1st Opposite Party as alleged by the Complainants and prays to dismiss the Complaint.

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

          The two Complainants wanted to purchase the afore mentioned property through a Housing Loan from the 1st Opposite Party, LIC Housing Finance Ltd., under a takeover plan from the 2nd Opposite Party in March 2006, they were duly informed that the total dues is Rs.8, 43,315/- as on 26th March 2006 in respect of the three loans plus accrued interest from 1st 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 1st Opposite Party whereby the accrued interest from 1st 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 2nd 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 3rd  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The transaction took place between the Complainants and the 3rd Opposite Party was the sale of immovable property, the 3rd 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 2nd Opposite Party the Complainants able to get housing loan from the first Opposite Party for purchase of the immovable property from the 3rd Opposite Party. Having received necessary certificate from the 3rd Opposite Party, and based on the said certificate purchased the demand drafts in the name of the 2nd Opposite Party towards the clearance of the loan availed by the 3rd 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 3rd Opposite Party. Even in the sale deeds executed by the 3rd 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 2nd Opposite Party with regard to the 3rd Opposite Party’s housing loan and documents in custody of the 2nd Opposite Party, the first Opposite Party allowed the Complainants and 3rd Opposite Party to proceed with sale transaction. There is no service is involved in the transaction between the Complainants and 3rd 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 3rd Opposite Party situated in plot No.344A, 344B with land ground and 1st floor of the building, 13th Street, Baba Nagar, Villivakkam, Chennai- 39, from the 3rd Opposite Party by availing loan from the 1st Opposite Party and the 3rd Opposite Party already having 3 loans in respect of the said property with the 2nd 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 2nd Opposite Party Boroda Bank who was holding title deeds of the 3rd Opposite Party and he has also not provided any service to the Complainant. The 1st 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 3rd Opposite Party/Owner. The total sale of construction of Rs.22,000/-.  Each Complainant paid a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- to the 3rd 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 1st Opposite Party. The 1st 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 2nd Opposite Party and the balance amount paid to the complaiants.

          9. The 3rd Opposite Party availed three loans from the 2nd 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 3rd Opposite Party from the 2nd Opposite Party Ex.B2 & Ex.B5 certificate establishes that there were three loans in respect of the property. The 3rd 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 1st Opposite Party/LIC to redeem only second loans and accordingly the 1st Opposite Party  sent two Demand Draft to the 2nd 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 1st Opposite Party. The 1st Opposite Party also credited he has not cleared the third loan. Therefore, the 2nd Opposite Party has not returned the parent document to the 1st Opposite Party are to the Complainant in view of that the loan is spending is sustainable. It is dispute between the Complainants and the 3rd Opposite Party. The Complainants are the purchase should have insured that the entire loan have been cleared either by himself or by the 3rd 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 23rd   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 2nd  OPPOSITE PARTY :

Ex.B1 dated  NIL                       Copy of Power of Attorney

Ex.B2 dated  26.03.2006                     Letter dt 26.03.2006 from the 2nd 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 3rd 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 3rd  OPPOSITE PARTY:

 

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

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 1st   OPPOSITE PARTY:

 

Ex.B6 dated  23.03.2006                    Letter of sanction

 

Ex.B7 dated 25.03.2006                     Letter of sanction

 

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.