By Sri.P.K,.Sasi, President
The case of the complainants is that they have availed mortgage loan of Rs.7,55,371/- from the opposite party on 29/9/05 by pledging original document bearing document No.1987/2005. They used the loan amount to purchase the property covered under the above document. The repayment was scheduled as monthly instalment of Rs.9,022/- for 120 months. Accordingly the complainant remitted Rs.10,000/- on every month to their loan account. The EMI started from 7/11/2005. Opposite party deducted 39 months with Rs.9022/-. The complainants are settled at Dubai. Hence they used to keep sufficient amount in their account. For the remaining instalments opposite party deducted Rs.8,777/- on every months from their account. The reason to change in the monthly instalment amount was informed to them that, the interest was calculated with floating interest rate. The required monthly instalment amounts were withdrawn by the opposite party from the account of complainant. All the changes in the EMI were made by the opposite party themselves. For the last 25 months the opposite party withdrawn Rs.8,408/- per month. In fact, the complainant could have closed the loan by paying monthly instalments of Rs.9022/- for 120 months, for which sufficient amount was deposited and retained by them in their account.
2.In the month of October 2015, after completing the 120 instaments, the complainant demanded for returning their original document. But the Branch Manager prolonged the matter saying some or other reason. They were told by the Branch Manager that they could not trace out in which branch the property was mortgaged and the original document is deposited. Then the complainant issued notice to main branches of the opposite party. But no reply received. According to complainants they have availed the loan from the opposite party by depositing their Title Deed and they have deposited sufficient amount in their account and the opposite party bank has withdrawn required amount from their account. According to them entire loan amount has repaid and the loan transaction is also closed by the opposite party. Then a complaint was filed before banking Ombudsman and the Ombudsman directed the complainant in their order to pay Rs.33,340/- for closing the loan and to return back the documents. The complainants were ready to pay that amount. Whereas the opposite party was not amenable to comply the order passed by the Ombudsman. Then a notice was issued by the opposite party stating that within 60 days if Rs.52,165/- is not repaid, they will take possession of the complainants house. That act of the opposite party amounts to utter deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice towards the complainant. Hence this complaint is filed for getting relief.
3. On receiving complaint, notice was properly sent to the opposite party. Evenafter accepting the notice, opposite party neither appeared before the Forum nor submitted any version. Hence set exparte and posted for complainants evidence.
4. From the side of complainant, POA holder appeared before the Forum and submitted proof affidavit, in which he has affirmed and explained all the averments stated in the complaint in detail. He has also produced seven documents, which are marked as Exts.P1 to P7. Ext.P1 is POA, Ext.P2 is copy of receipt received from opposite party, Ext.P3 is copy of loan summary, Ext.P4 is copy of order received from banking Ombudsman, Ext.P5 is notice received from the opposite party, Ext.P6 series are postal receipts and Ext.P7 is statement prepared by the complainants regarding repayment. Since there is no contra evidence available before us, we are inclined to accept the proof affidavit filed by complainants. If at all there was any contra evidence for the opposite party, they ought to have been appeared before the Forum and submitted their version. We heard the counsel for the complainants and perused the documents produced.
5. Considering the points discussed hereinabove, we are of the opinion that the opposite party has committed utter deficiency in service towards the complainants by not acting as per the order passed by banking Ombudsman.
6. In the result, we allow this complaint and the opposite party is directed to return the documents mortgaged by the complainants bearing document No.1987/2005 of SRO Chavakkad, along with other documents submitted by complainants towards the loan transaction by accepting the amount ordered by the Ombudsman and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) as compensation and cost to the complainants for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed, to the complainants within one month from receiving copy of this order. Failing which, the complainants are entitled to get 12% interest for all amounts till realization.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 30th day of December 2016.
