A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AT HYDERABAD.
F.A. 515/2007 against C.C 588/2006, Dist. Forum-I, Hyderabad.
Between:
Y. Ashok Raj, S/o. Y. Nandaiah
All India Radio Employee
Age: 35 years,
R/o. 8-2-113/2,
Punjagutta Upparabasthi
Hyderabad-500 082. *** Appellant/
Complainant
And
M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank
Rep. by its Manager
Somajiguda Branch
Somajiguda, Hyderabad. *** Respondent/
Opposite Party
Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. G. Prabhanjan Reddy
Counsel for the Resp: M/s. S. Surya Prakash Rao
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
&
SRI R. L. NARASIMHA RAO, MEMBER
WEDNESDAY, THIS THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND NINE
Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)
*****
1) Appellant is unsuccessful complainant.
2) The case of the complainant in brief is that he applied for loan for purchase of a house for an amount of Rs. 13 lakhs with the respondent bank on 25.7.2005. After collecting Rs. 7,163/- towards processing fee the bank conveyed its decision to sanction loan of Rs. 12 lakhs by letter Dt. 25.7.2005. provided, he submitted death certificate of the owner, original agreement of sale, Legal heirs’ certificate, draft sale deed etc. Accordingly he spent huge amounts, obtained necessary certificates and duly complied with all the formalities. He paid earnest money of Rs. 2,30,000/- at the time of entering into agreement with the owner in July, 2005, and convinced her that he would pay the remaining consideration after receipt of amount from the bank. When he sought the amount by way of demand draft in favour of Smt. Ramulamma the owner of the house to facilitate registration, and requested to release the
same, the bank dragged on the matter, and on that he gave legal notice on 15.1.2006 calling upon the bank to pay damages to a tune of Rs. 32,75,600/-. Neither it disbursed the amount nor gave reply. This amounts to deficiency in service and therefore sought Rs. 3,000/- spent towards obtaining death certificate, Rs. 10,000/- spent for obtaining family legal heirs certificate from MRO office, Rs. 5,000/- spent towards obtaining No Objection Certificate from Collectorate, Rs. 2,57,600/- paid towards earnest money to the owner under the agreement and Rs. 5 lakhs towards damages for escalation of prices of the house and costs.
3) The respondent bank resisted the case. While alleging that the complainant was not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, however admitted in principle that it had agreed to sanction loan subject to terms and conditions vide sanction letter Dt. 25.7.2005, acknowledged by the very complainant. Clauses 3,15,19,21 stipulate that the title to the property shall be clear and marketable, plan should be approved by the competent authority, and that the bank may stop financial assistance at any stage without any notice or giving any reasons. If the property title was not clear and not approved by the concerned municipal authority it would cancel the sanction letter. While verifying the documents they found discrepancies in the title. It requested the complainant to furnish two public documents besides directing him to come to the scheduled property for physical verification, in the light of the fact that owners, legal heirs of Smt. Maisamma informed that there were disputes interse and not willing to execute the sale deed. Even the house did not have sanction from the municipality. In the agreement of sale Dt. 12.6.2005 there was no forfeiture clause, and therefore the amount paid if any to Smt. Ramulamma could be recovered by him. Even before his application for loan he had death certificate, family heir certificate and therefore the averment that he had spent amounts for obtaining these documents for the purpose of loan was false. There is no deficiency of service on their part. Therefore it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4) The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A20 marked. The respondent bank did not file any documents.
5) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the legal heirs of Smt. Mysamma were not willing to sell the house and that there was no municipal permission. Since the consent letter of legal heirs of the owner was not obtained, it was the discretion of the bank to sanction loan, and therefore he was not entitled for refund of various amounts spent towards obtaining various certificates. However, the complaint was allowed in part directing the bank to refund processing fee of Rs. 7,163/- within one month.
6) Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective. It ought to have seen that the bank had sanctioned the loan and that he had fulfilled all the terms and conditions. There was no dispute over the property. In fact the Municipal Corporation has collected taxes. Therefore he was entitled to the amount spent by him, and prayed that the complaint be allowed.
7) The point that arises for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to various amounts claimed by him in the complaint, and to what relief?
8) It is an undisputed fact that the complainant in order to purchase a house approached the respondent bank for sanction of loan, the bank in its turn by letter Ex. A1 Dt. 25.7.2005 agreed to sanction Rs. 12 lakhs subject to various terms and conditions. The complainant had entered into an agreement of sale Ex. A2 Dt. 12. 6. 2005 for purchase of said house with one Smt. K. Ramulamma. A perusal of the agreement discloses that the vendor Smt. K. Ramulla claiming to be absolute owner executed Ex. A2 agreement of sale, mentioning that the said house was gifted to her by her mother Smt.
Maisamma. Obviously the gift is not evidenced by any document and at any rate there was no mention about the date of gift deed. Smt. Maisamma mother of the agreement holder had purchased the said vacant site from Sri K. V. Gopal Reddy under Ex. A3 sale deed Dt. 4.1.1968. Smt. Maisamma obtained No Objection Certificate from municipal corporation for construction of building vide Ex. A5 endorsement Dt. 3.11.2005. It seems that Municipal Corporation has reassessed the house tax for unauthorised construction. Smt. Maisamma, original owner died on 14.8.1970 evidenced under death certificate Ex. A10 leaving behind K. Narasimha, K. Yadaiah the sons and K. Ramulamma, K. Jangamma, K. Satyamma and K. Devi the daughters evidenced under family members certificate Ex. A13.
9) The very complainant while submitting a draft copy of the sale deed Ex. A14 mentioned the names of all those legal heirs in favour of Smt. Y. Savithri Raj, wife of the complainant. Admittedly, the wife of the complainant is not the loanee. In the draft sale deed there was a mention that Smt. K. Maisamma expired on 14.8.1970 leaving behind the vendors as her sole and exclusive legal heirs, and ever since the above named vendors are enjoying the above said property as an absolute owners. Evidently they did not subscribe to the draft sale deed. Contrarily, the complainant requested the bank to disburse Rs. 7 lakhs out of Rs. 12 lakhs in favour of Smt. Ramulamma, one of the daughters of Smt. Maisamma on the ground that the property was gifted to her. In fact, he obtained Ex. A2 agreement only from her. The bank had categorically stated that there was dispute between the legal heirs of Smt. Maisamma, and as such they would not be able to sanction loan. The complainant could not explain as to the discrepancy between Ex. A2 agreement of sale executed by Smt. K. Ramulamma in favour of complainant and Ex. A14 draft sale deed executed by all the legal heirs in favour of his wife. The recitals in Ex. A2 are contrary to Ex. A14.
10) At the cost of repetition, we may state that the agreement of sale was executed by Smt. K. Ramulamma in favour of complainant on the ground that her mother Smt. Maisamma gifted the said property to her. While draft sale deed Ex. A14 shows that all the legal heirs of Smt. Maisamma intend to sell it in favour of complainant’s wife on the ground that they are the legal heirs of Smt. Maisamma, successors to sell the property. In view of this discrepancy and in the light of the fact that the complainant asked the bank to disburse Rs. 7 lakhs out of Rs. 12 lakhs to one of the heirs, the bank did not intend to enter into litigation, and therefore informed that they could not sanction loan. The bank at no time assured the complainant that they would release the amount to him or to his vendor without satisfying itself about the title, right and interests of the vendor. A perusal of above said documents would undoubtedly show that the bank was justified in not sanctioning the loan.
11) The claims made in the complaint viz., Rs. 3,000/- spent towards obtaining death certificate, Rs. 10,000/- spent for obtaining family legal heirs certificate, Rs. 5,000/- spent towards obtaining No Objection Certificate cannot be granted. It is not known why the complainant had paid these amounts in various offices. If it were not legal, he would not be entitled to claim the said amounts. The complainant could not prove that he paid earnest money to the agreement holder and even if he had paid, it is up to him to recover. The bank never directed the complainant to pay the said amount to the agreement holder, and it would reimburse the same. The question of paying damages in view of escalation of prices will not arise as the complainant could not establish that he had right to obtain loan as he has not satisfied the bank as to vendor’s title in the property. These are all fanciful claims. In fact the Dist. Forum was generous in directing the bank to refund the amount collected towards processing fee. The complainant is not entitled to any of the amounts. There are no merits in the appeal.
12) In the result the appeal is dismissed. However, no costs.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
Dt. 21. 10. 2009.
*pnr
“CORRECTED – O.K.”
