PER HON’BLE MEMBER SMT. A. A. SHRESHTHA

1. The Present complaint is filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 by the complainant.

2. The complainant had taken housing Loan from the Opponent, who engaged in providing different kinds of loans to the customers.
3. The complainant had taken Home Loan vide A/c no. MUMHL18001838 and 18001925 of property No.A6/1009, Xrbia, Ambi, Talegaon, Pune, Maharashtra. The contentions of the Complainant that on 8/2/2024 he made payment of full and final settlement amount to the Opponent. But the opponent has failed to return the property documents within 30 days from closing of his home loan account. Therefore he sent legal notice through his Advocate on 18/04/2024 thereby calling upon the opponent to follow the guidelines given by the RBI and pay the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-to the Complainant. But the opponent has failed to comply the requisites of the demand notice. On the contrary the opponent gave reply dated 04/05/2024 to the notice and informed that there is no delay in returning the documents. The opponent have complied the RBI Guidelines and asked the Complainants to withdraw the notice. After receipt of the said reply of the opponent, the complainant has filed present complaint before this Commission.
4. Heard Advocate for complainant on the point of admission of the complaint. Perused Documents filed on record by the complainants.  Prima facie it appears from the notice of the Complainant dated 18/04/2024, this notice has been sent by the Complainant through his Advocate, after he received his property documents. On the other hand the reply of the Opponent (page no. 21- 22), it has mentioned that the opponent have closed the Home Loan Account of the Complainant on 13/03/2023 and returned the property documents to the complainant is on 29/03/2024 i.e. within 15 days from closing of Home Loan Account. The property documents returned by the opponent on 29/03/2024, the complainant has sent legal notice on 18/04/2024 and thereafter the complaint is filed before the Commission. The entire conduct of the complaint appears to be after thought. There is absence of cause of action in the present compliant.   Hence there is no violation of guidelines of RBI on the part of the Opponent and there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Opponent. Considering the reply of opponent, this Commission is of opinion that the complainant failed to made out the deficiency in services or unfair trade practice, on the part opponent.
5. In view of this the present Complaint cannot be entertained by this Commission Hence the complaint is liable to be rejected. No order as to cost.