Shri Swapan Kumar Mahanty, President.
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
The brief facts of the case are that the complainants had obtained a Home Loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from GE Money Housing Finance for purchasing a flat on the 4th Floor of premises No. 18/1, A. K. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-700090, on condition to repay the loan amount in 180 equal monthly installments at the rate of Rs.6,082/-. That the authorized person of GE Money Housing Finance had taken the original IGR after registration of the Deed of Conveyance with a view to retain the original title deed as security against the said loan. In the mean time, GE Money Housing Finance sold their shares to the O.P., the O.P. confirmed about such acquisition of shares and had allocated a new unique Loan Account/Proposal No.HL0011/GFKT00000479 to the complainants instead of existing loan account. Complainants liquidated the entire loan amount and in spite of repeated requests and e-mail the O.P. failed to return the original title deed. The complainants further alleged that the attitudes of the O.P. tantamount to deficiency in service for which the complainants have suffered mental agony. Hence, the consumer complaint.
The O.P. has contested the case by filing a W.V. and denied all the allegations. The specific case of the O.P. is that vide letter dated 12/06/2013 they informed the complainants regarding acquisition of shares of GE Money Housing Finance and a new unique loan account / proposal number was allocated in place of existing loan account. Complainants have already liquidated the entire loan amount and loan related documents except original title deed have already been returned to the complainants. The O.P. never received original title deed at the time of acquisition of GE Money Housing Finance. Hence, there is no negligence or deficiency in services on the part of the O.P. Accordingly, the consumer complaint should be dismissed.
In the light of the pleadings of the parties the following points necessarily came up for determination :-
- Are the complainants consumer within the meaning of C. P. Act, 1986 ?
- Has the O.P. deficient in rendering services to the complainants ?
- Has the O.P. indulged in unfair trade practice ?
- Are the complainants entitled to get any relief or reliefs as prayed for ?
Decision with Reasons
To prove their case both parties have adduced evidence on affidavit. They have also filed questionnaires and replies vis-à-vis relevant documents in support of their respective cases. We have also examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.
Point No.-1.
The Ld. Advocate for the O.P. contended that complainants are not a consumer within the meaning of the C. P. Act, 1986. He further argued that the purported dispute relates to redemption of pledge. As such, the complainants are not fall within the purview of the C. P. Act, 1986. Per contra, the Ld. Advocate for the complainants submitted that complainants availed Home Loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from GE Money Housing Finance for purchasing a flat and the O.P. acquired the shares of GE Money Housing Finance, a new unique loan account / proposal number was allocated in place of existing loan account and the authorized person of GE Money Housing Finance had retained the IGR with a view to retain the original deed as security against the Home Loan. He further argued that the O.P. vide e-mail dated 16/03/2017 informed the complainants that all the original documents relating to the flat had been delivered at their branch but ultimately denied that original deed was not received by them from the erstwhile financer.
We have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.
It remains undisputed that the complainants availed Home Loan from GE Money Housing Finance for purchasing a flat on the 4th Floor of premises No.18/1, A. K. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-700090 on condition to repay the loan in 180 equal monthly installments at the rate of Rs.6,082/-.
The fact remains that GE Money Housing Finance sold their shares to the O.P. and the O.P. confirmed about such acquisition of shares and had allocated a new unique loan account number instead of existing loan account. Complainants availed services of the O.P. and loan was taken for purchasing a flat not for commercial purpose. Hence, the complainants does come under definition of consumer. Therefore, complainants have locus standi to file the consumer complaint. Thus, Point No,.-1 answered in the affirmative.
Points No.-2, 3 & 4.
All the three points are taken up together for brevity in discussion.
The fact remains that the O.P. is engaged in the business of providing financial credit facilities in the form of various kinds of loan and they confirmed about acquisition of shares of GE Money Housing Finance vide Annexure-B. Admittedly, GE Money Housing Finance is now known as Magma Housing Finance and a new unique Loan Account / Proposal No.HL0011/GFKT00000479 was allocated instead of existing Loan Account. It is also true that complainants have already cleared the loan amount and loan account has been closed. Annexure-C goes to show to that Customer Service Team of O.P. vide e-mail dated 16/03/2017 informed the complainants to collect the original property papers from their branch office by producing photo ID proofs.
The main grievance of the complainants is that on 17/03/2017 they had been to the branch office of the O.P. with a view to collect the original property papers but Mr. SauravMitra told that original Title Deed has been misplaced and except Agreement for Sale and sanctioned plan nothing are lying on the loan file. Ultimately, the customer service team of O.P. informed that original Title Deed is lost from their office. The O.P. denied the grievance of the complainants and submits that they have received loan related documents from GE Money Housing Finance except Title Deed. The O.P. has failed to furnish any scrap of document in support of their defence that they had received loan related documents except Title Deed at the time of acquisition of shares of GE Money Housing. Photocopy of document annexed with the W.V. is not suffice to establish that the O.P. received loan related documents of the flat except the Title Deed from the erstwhile financer. Financer usually retain the IGR/original Title Deed as security against the loan and return the same to the borrower after liquidation of loan. Admittedly, complainants have already liquidated the Home Loan but the O.P. did not return the original Title Deed of the flat. Title deed is an instrument showing bonafide ownership of the property and said document is of utmost importance for various purposes. It is true that failure to return the original Title Deed of the flat in favour of the complainants by the O.P. tantamount to deficiency in service and further denial of receiving original Title Deed from the erstwhile financer at the time of acquisition is unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P. Accordingly, three points under determination answered in the affirmative.
In result, the case succeeds in part.
Hence,
Ordered
That the complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest in part against the O.P. with litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only.
O.P. is directed to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only to the complainants on account of expenditure incurred for registration of the flat on the 4thfloor of premises No.18/1, A. K. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-700090 within 30 days from the date of this order.
O.P. is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) only to the complainants for causing mental agony and harassment within the stipulated period.
O.P. is also directed to deposit Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only to this Forum as punitive damage for practicing unfair trade practice within the stipulated period.
Liberty be given to the complainants to put the order into execution,if the OP transgress to comply the order.
