Per:- Mr. Deshpande, President Place : BANDRA JUDGMENT
The Opposite Party No.2 is Maharshi Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd., having its head office at Delhi and branch office at Navi Mumbai. The Complainant had availed loan in sum of Rs.2,50,000/- from the Opposite Party No.2 – Finance Corporation; on 12/1/1999 and subsequently deposited 22 post-dated cheques towards EMI on 31/3/2003. According to the Complainant, suddenly, vide a letter dtd.23/10/2003, the Opposite Party No.2 – Finance Corporation; informed him that the Opposite Party No.1 – Bank; has taken over the loan under agreement between the Opposite Party No.2 – Finance Corporation; on one hand and the Opposite Party No.1 – Bank; on the other, under securitization. The Opposite Party No.2 – Finance Corporation; informed the Complainant that new post-dated cheques towards EMI should be sent to the ICICI Home Finance Company Ltd., having address at – Gokhale Road, Thane (West). The Complainant was not consulted before transfer of loan account to the Opposite Party No.1 – Bank; or the action taken by the Opposite Party No.2 – Finance Corporation; under securitization. The Complainant wrote letter dtd.25/2/2004 to the Opposite Party No.2 – Finance Corporation; and registered his protest about unilateral transfer of his loan account to the Opposite Party No.1 – Bank. Thereafter, the Complainant started receiving letters from ICICI Home Finance Company Ltd., Lucknow Branch; that his matter was kept before ‘Lok Adalat’ for settlement. The Complainant informed the said branch at Lucknow that he had not taken loan from ICICI Home Finance Company Ltd., and as such, he was not required to repay the loan or appear before the ‘Lok Adalat’. In the meantime, the Complainant also sent letters to the advocate of ICICI Home Finance Company Ltd., to furnish him the details of outstanding loan dues as well as the rate of interest charged by the said institution. However, the Complainant did not get any information as sought by him. The Complainant, vide letter dtd.4/7/2005, sent a cheque in sum of Rs.27,971/- to the advocate of ICICI Home Finance Company Ltd., in response to their notice dtd.22/6/2005. The Complainant was under the impression that he had repaid the loan dues in full, but again he received notice from ICICI Home Finance Company Ltd., to the effect that the Complainant’s case was fixed before ‘Lok Nyayalay’ at Lucknow on 14/11/2005. According to the Complainant, he had received the loan amount from the Opposite Party No.2 – Finance Corporation; at Mumbai and it was not possible for him to attend the ‘Lok Nyayalay’ at Lucknow and he was receiving demand letters and communications from Lucknow. Not only that but the Complainant was not furnished with any information about the outstanding loan amount, rate of interest and the credit in his loan account by way of post-dated cheques as well as subsequent payments. Ultimately, the Complainant filed present complaint before this Forum, as against M/s. ICICI Bank, ICICI Bank Tower, Bandra – Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051; as the Opposite Party No.1 and M/s. Maharshi Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd., Navi Mumbai; as the Opposite Party No.2. The Complainant has sought relief in the form of direction to the Opposite Party No.1 – Bank; not to make any demand to the Complainant towards the outstanding loan dues and to furnish the statement of accounts including details as sought by the Complainant, return of original documents kept by the Complainant as security and also for payment of compensation in sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony, hardship & inconvenience.
[2] The Complainant, on filing of the present complaint, realized that the head office of the Opposite Party No.2 – Finance Corporation; is at New Delhi, and therefore, he deleted the name of the Opposite Party No.2, having its address at Navi Mumbai and effected amendment in the complaint to add New Delhi head-office of the Opposite Party No.2 – Finance Corporation; as the Opposite Party No.2. That amendment was allowed and the Complainant served the Opposite Party No.2 – Finance Corporation. On service of notice, the Opposite Party No.2 – Finance Corporation; appeared and filed its written version taking stand that in the year 2003, the Opposite Party No.2 – Finance Corporation; assigned all its loan recovery process and other activities in favour of ICICI Bank – the Opposite Party No.1 herein; and this fact was communicated to the Complainant, vide a letter dtd.23/10/2003. The Complainant was also informed that thereafter, he should contact the Opposite Party No.1 – Bank; for the loan details and send post-dated cheques to the said Bank. Thus, the Opposite Party No.2 – Finance Corporation; took stand that there had been no deficiency in service on its part. [3] The Complainant served the Opposite Party No.1 – Bank; vide notice dtd.17/2/2006, to appear before this Forum, but the Opposite Party No.1 – Bank; despite due service of such notice, chose to remain absent and did not file its written version on the record, and therefore, was set ex-parte. [4] The Complainant filed his affidavit of evidence as well as documents. The Opposite Party No.2 – Finance Corporation; however, did not file affidavit of any of its officer, but its written version is affirmed & notarized. The Complainant filed his rejoinder to the written version filed by the Opposite Party No.2 – Finance Corporation; as also, filed written notes of arguments. [5] We have gone through the pleadings, affidavit and documents as well as written notes of arguments filed by the Complainant. [6] We take the points that arise for our consideration and record our findings there-against as below:- Sr. No. | Points for consideration | Findings | 1. | Whether the Complainant has proved that there has been deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties in not furnishing required details to the Complainant vis-à-vis his loan account? | YES. However, only as against the Opposite Party No.1 – Bank. | 2. | Whether the Complainant is entitled to compensation as well as return of original documents kept with the Opposite Party No.2 – Finance Corporation; as a security while availing the loan? | NO | 3. | What order? | The complaint is partly allowed. |
REASONS FOR FINDINGS [7] It appears from the written version filed by the Opposite Party No.2 – Finance Corporation; that the Complainant had availed of a housing loan from the Opposite Party No.2 – Finance Corporation. In fact, the Complainant, in the complaint itself, has admitted that he availed of a housing loan in sum of Rs.2,50,000/- from the Opposite Party No.2 – Finance Corporation; and had deposited 22 post-dated cheques towards EMI. It appears from the written version filed by the Opposite Party No.2 – Finance Corporation; that in the year 2002, under the process of securitization, the loan account of the Complainant was transferred to the Opposite Party No.1 – Bank. The version of the Opposite Party No.2 – Finance Corporation; that the said transfer was under securitization and the Complainant was informed about this change, vide a letter dtd.23/10/2003, gets support from a copy of the letter dtd.23/10/2003, which is produced on the record by the Complainant himself at page (16) of the compilation of the complaint. By the said letter, the Opposite Party No.2 – Finance Corporation; informed the Complainant that he had availed loan in sum of Rs.2,50,000/-, under a loan agreement dtd.31/3/1999 and the Opposite Party No.2 – Finance Corporation; has securitized the loan to the Opposite Party No.1 – Bank; and alongwith the loan agreement and security, the loan account has been assigned in favour of the Opposite Party No.1 – Bank. Since that process, obviously, had taken place under a statute titled – ‘The Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002’; the Opposite Party No.2 – Finance Corporation; had not committed any breach of an agreement or an act prejudicial to the interest of the Complainant. Thereafter, the Complainant was supposed to contact the Opposite Party No.1 – Bank. In the letter dtd.23/10/2003, the Opposite Party No.2 – Finance Corporation; had communicated the address of the branch office of the Opposite Party No.1 – Bank; where the Complainant was supposed to contact and it reads as follows:- ICICI Home Finance Company Limited, Grd. Floor, Shop#3A/3B, Shiv Krupa Apts., Plot No.1, Gokhale Road, Nr. Malhar Cinema, Thane – West, Mumbai Contact Person: Nilesh Pal |
[8] Pursuant to that letter, the Complainant contacted Vashi, Navi Mumbai; office of the ICICI Home Finance Company Ltd., and on 10/1/2005, he was informed by the Opposite Party No.1 – Bank; that he should contact the ICICI Home Finance Company Ltd., Sapru Marg, Lucknow. Now, as per the communication sent by the Opposite Party No.2 – Finance Corporation; to the Complainant on 23/10/2003, the Complainant was supposed to contact ICICI Home Finance Company Ltd., Thane (West), Mumbai; whereas by this letter dtd.10/1/2005, the Opposite Party No.1 – Bank; informed the Complainant to contact ICICI Home Finance Company Ltd., Lucknow Branch. Pursuant to that letter, the Complainant sent a letter dtd.30/1/2005 to ICICI Home Finance Company Ltd., Sapru Marg, Lucknow; asking for the details. However, he did not receive any reply. The Complainant then, sent a legal notice dtd.23/3/2005, through his advocate, asking for the details and return of original documents. Thereafter, the Opposite Party No.1 – Bank; vide a letter dtd.8/3/2005, again asked the Complainant to contact Mr. Neeraj Mishra, at ICICI Home Finance Company Ltd., Sapru Marg, Lucknow. However, vide a letter dtd.10/4/2005, the Opposite Party No.1 – Bank; informed the Complainant to contact Mr. Ajit Ghulati. In the meantime, the Complainant received a letter dtd.12/4/2005 from the Civil Court, Lucknow; to the effect that the Complainant’s matter was placed before ‘Lok Adalat’ scheduled on 24/4/2005 at Lucknow. The Complainant, vide his letter dtd.2/5/2005, addressed to the Secretary, District Legal Service Authority, Lucknow; informed that he had no such transaction with the ICICI Home Finance Company Ltd., at Lucknow and it was not possible for him to attend ‘Lok Adalat’ at Lucknow and by the same letter, he had sought information vis-à-vis his loan transaction. We find that it would not be necessary to refer to all the communications and correspondence, but it appears from the letters sent by the Complainant that he had written number of letters to the Opposite Party No.1 – Bank; as well as ICICI Home Finance Company Ltd., Lucknow Branch; asking for the details of his loan transaction. However, those details were not furnished to him. This shows that there had been deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 – Bank. [9] Not only that but the Complainant received Loan Recall Notice dtd.22/6/2005 from the advocate of ICICI Home Finance Company Ltd., Lucknow; asking him to repay the outstanding loan amount in sum of Rs.27,971/-. However, particulars furnished in that letter were obviously incorrect because it was mentioned that loan was disbursed under loan agreement dtd.20/11/2004, whereas the loan agreement between the Complainant and the Opposite Party No.2 – Finance Corporation; had taken place in the year 1999. Moreover, loan amount was of Rs.2,50,000/-, whereas in this letter, the loan amount mentioned was of Rs.63,269/-. Still then, the Complainant sent a cheque in sum of Rs.27,971/- to the said advocate in response to this Loan Recall Notice. Now, on the basis of that letter, the Complainant is insisting that his loan amount has been repaired in full because in this notice dtd.22/6/2005, the outstanding loan amount was shown as Rs.27,971/- only, which was paid by the Complainant under a cheque dtd.4/7/2005, drawn on State Bank of India, Malad Branch. Obviously, details furnished by ICICI Home Finance Company Ltd., vide this letter, were incorrect and the Complainant has wrongly relied upon this letter to contend that his loan has been repaid in full. This conclusion gets support from the fact that subsequent to this Loan Recall Letter dtd.22/6/2005, the Complainant received a letter dtd.11/11/2005 from ICICI Home Finance Company Ltd., that EMI till 31/10/2005 was outstanding. This shows that the loan amount was not repaid in full. [10] As pointed out above, the Opposite Party No.2 – Finance Corporation; had informed the Complainant, vide a letter dtd.23/10/2003, that the Complainant’s loan account was transferred to ICICI Home Finance Company Ltd., Thane (West), Mumbai. However, subsequently, the Complainant started receiving letters from ICICI Home Finance Company Ltd., Sapru Marg, Lucknow. It appears that ICICI Home Finance Company Ltd., is a sister concern of ICICI Bank – the Opposite Party No.1 herein. This conclusion gets support from the statement produced on the record by the Complainant alongwith his written notes of arguments. That statement issued under Section-80(C)(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; was issued on the letterhead of the Opposite Party No.1 – Bank. Below that letter, there is signature of an authorized signatory of the Opposite Party No.1 – Bank; and there is an endorsement to the effect that the said authorized signatory was a constituted attorney of ICICI Home Finance Company Ltd. Thus, ICICI Home Finance Company Ltd., appears to be a sister concern of the Opposite Party No.1 – Bank. In the letter dtd.23/10/2003 also, there was statement to the effect that the loan account was transferred to the Opposite Party No.1 – Bank. Then, the letter dtd.10/1/2005, addressed to the Complainant, giving intimation of overdue EMI was sent on the letterhead of the Opposite Party No.1 – Bank; and by the said letter, the Opposite Party No.1 – Bank; had informed the Complainant to contact ICICI Home Finance Company Ltd., Sapru Marg, Lucknow. After the securitization process was over, the loan account of the Complainant was transferred to Lucknow Branch and the Complainant started receiving letters from the Lucknow Branch. Therefore, the fact that the ICICI Home Finance Company Ltd., is not a party to the proceeding does not make any difference because ICICI Bank is the party Opposite Party No.1 and it has its branch office at Bandra – Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai; which is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Part of the cause of action has thus arisen within territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and the Opposite party no.1 branch is situate within the jurisdiction of this Forum. Apart from that the Opposite Party No.2 – Finance Corporation; vide its letter dtd.23/10/2003, had informed the Complainant that the loan was taken over by the Opposite Party No.1 – Bank. The Complainant resides within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, as also, the cause of action has accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. The Opposite Party No.1 – Bank; did not appear and failed to put-in its written version to deny the alleged deficiency in service on its part. [11] As pointed out above, the Opposite Party No.1 – Bank; did not furnish the details, as sought by the Complainant. Since, the Opposite Party No.1 – Bank; had taken over the loan account from the Opposite Party No.2 – Finance Corporation; and also had received a cheque sent by the Complainant in sum of Rs.27,971/-, it was under a legal obligation to render proper service to the Complainant. As pointed out above, the Opposite Party No.1 – Bank; failed to provide necessary details, particulars qua the Complainant’s loan account, which shows that the Opposite Party No.1 – Bank; is guilty of deficiency in service. [12] The Complainant has sought relief in the form of a declaration to the effect that his loan account has been discharged/ repaid in full and the Opposite Parties may be directed to return the original documents. The Complainant has also sought compensation from the Opposite Party No.1 – Bank. However, in view of correspondence and in view of the fact that prima-facie the loan amount has not been repaid in full and there is certain outstanding amount, we find that it would not be appropriate to give direction to the Opposite Party No.1 – Bank; to return the documents as well as to pay compensation to the Complainant. [13] We would like to observe that it would be most practicable, if the loan account of the Complainant is transferred from Lucknow to the branch of the Opposite Party No.1 – Bank at Mumbai; since ICICI Home Finance Company Ltd., appears to be a sister concern or a subsidiary of the Opposite Party No.1 – Bank; and since the loan was taken over by the Opposite Party No.1 – Bank; we find that there should not be any difficulty for the Opposite Party No.1 – Bank; to give direction to its branch office at Lucknow to transfer the loan account of the Complainant to any office of its Mumbai branch. [14] We also find that in view of long drawn correspondence, which the Complainant was required to enter into, a direction to the Opposite Party No.1 – Bank; to furnish the details, as sought by the Complainant, vis-à-vis his loan account is necessary and there is deficiency to that effect. We, therefore, find it appropriate to give direction to the Opposite party no.1- bank to furnish details in respect of the loan account of the Complainant. However, we have not found any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.2 – Finance Corporation; since it had communicated to the Complainant to contact the Opposite Party No.1 – Bank; for further details. In view of above discussions, we proceed to pass the following order:- ORDER The complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Party No.1 – Bank; is hereby directed to furnish the details in respect of loan account of the Complainant, as sought by him. The Complainant, if he so desires, may send a requisition to the Opposite Party No.1 – Bank; within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order, asking for the details of his loan account and within a period of six weeks of receipt of such requisition from the Complainant, the Opposite Party No.1 – Bank; shall reply to the Complainant or furnish the details, as sought by the Complainant. The Complainant is entitled to ask for the details only regarding outstanding loan dues when the loan was taken over, rate of interest charged by the Opposite Party No.1 – Bank; from time to time including the current rate of interest, credits as well as debits in the loan account and present outstanding loan dues. It is hereby made clear that in case of failure on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 – Bank; to furnish the details on above points, as sought by the Complainant, it shall be liable to pay to the Complainant, penalty in sum of Rs.100/- per day from the date of expiry of stipulated period of six weeks till such details are furnished to the Complainant. The complaint, as against the Opposite Party No.2, stands dismissed. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.
| | [HONABLE MR. MR.V.G.JOSHI] Member[HONABLE MR. Mr. J. L. Deshpande] PRESIDENT | |
