CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.277/2008
- Shri Shakti Raj Kapoor,
A-48/23, DLF Qutub Enclave,
Phase I, Gugaon- 122002.
- Ms. Pratibha Kapoor,
A-48/23, DLF Qutub Enclave,
Phase I, Gugaon- 122002. ………. Complainants
Vs.
Punjab National Bank,
Sansad Marg,
New Delhi-110001.
Having its head office at
7, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066 …………..Respondent
Date of Order: 13.07.2016
O R D E R
Ritu Garodia-Member
The factual matrix of the complaint is that the complainant purchased a property which was mortgaged with the OP bank. OP bank being the mortgagee, vide its letter dated 30.03.2002, advised the mortgagor/ seller to dispose of the property in question and deposit the proceed for the purpose of settlement of the loan account. The complaint executed agreement to sell with the mortgagor and made part payment towards the same. The mortgager deposited Rs.14,00,000/- in OP bank as part payment towards sale of mortgaged property. The complainant pursued the OP bank to facilitate the sale. The complainant relies an letter dated 26.09.2005, wherein OP had initially agreed to release the charges on property if Rs 41,00,000/- was deposited within four weeks. Complainant alleges that manager of OP bank refused to release the charge on property. Subsequently, on the assurance of DGM of bank, an escrow and
-2-
no lien account was created by complainant and sum of Rs.41,0,000/- was deposited in the said account. An interest of Rs.24,126/- and Rs.11,958/- got accrued on the amount deposited and TDS certificate was also provided for the same.
As no action was taken for the sale of said property, complainant transferred the amount from their joint account to spectrum fixed deposit for an interest @6.5% for six months on 03.05.2006. The amount increased to Rs.42,20,498/- due to interest accrued on FDR and tax was again deducted at source. Thereafter, parties entered into an agreement for sale on 29.11.2006. The agreement is annexed with complaint. The complainant alleges that he was made to sign a pre-drafted letter wherein he assigned the bank the FDR against the sale price of the property. Sale certificate was issued on 29.12.2006.
The complainant then by letter dated 5.01.2007 requested the OP to pay the interest amount accrued on said FDR but no response was given. Complaint was also filed before the banking ombudsman. The order by banking ombudsman is annexed with complaint. The complainant prays that the interest earned on the saving account and FDR i.e. Rs. 90,953/- be released to him.
OP in its pleading admits the property being mortgaged, the account of mortgagor was declared NPA on 31.03.2001, under the provision of Secutarisation Act, A notice was published on 11.04.2006 in leading newspapers giving details of mortgaged property. It is also admitted that mortgagor deposited Rs.14,00,000/- in their account as part payment towards sale consideration of property in question. OP imputes that as complainant was already in possession of property, the bank allowed the sale of property under Secutarisation Act. They entered into agreement of sale for Rs.55,00,000/- and Rs.41,00,000 deposited by complainant in a escrow account. OP also alleges that the complainants were not customer of bank and account was opened for the specific purpose of buying the mortgaged property.
Hon’ble banking ombudsman has also dismissed the complaint. OP admits to sale of property wherein appropriation of no lien account and subsequent FDR was
done towards sale consideration as due consent was given by the complainant vide letter dated 27.11.2006.
-3-
We have considered the pleading and affidavit by both the parties, the sequence of event are not disputed by either party. The only issue before is whether the interest accrued on no lien and escrow account and FDR could be appropriated by OP bank towards sale consideration. Perusal of letter dated 27.11.2006 by complainant to OP shows that an authority was given to a bank to adjust Rs.41,00,000/- along with interest towards sale of property under private treaty. Complainant has also agreed to surrender FDR in original for the same purpose. The plea taken by complainant that the letter dated 27.11.2006 was pre drafted type letter is devoid of force as it has been duly signed by the complainant along with his handwritten note. “Surrender FDR- in original duly discharged for the purpose”. A portion of agreement to sell dated 29.11.2006 admitted by both parties is reproduced as under “9. On execution of the said agreement, the bank is authorised to appropriate the amount deposit in no lien account toward the dues in the account of borrower firm without any recourse to Kapoors, purchasers in particular or to any other parties herein”. The Kapoors in this case being original mortgagor. The complainant being a returning officer of a bank, has duly signed the agreement to sell after carefully going through the contract.
The report of banking ombudsman dated 09.08.2007 reveals that the mortgage property was in possession of complainant from 2002 who approached the bank belatedly for release of property. The bank considered the old age of complainant and circumstance mentioned above and permitted the same. Due authorization is taken from complainant for adjustment of FDR towards sale consideration and the complaint before the ombudsman was dismissed.
In the facts and circumstance of the case, we hold that the FDR along with interest was assigned to bank by complainant and no reasonable consumer dispute is made out especially in the view to letter dated 27.11.2006. Hence, the complaint is dismissed. File consigned to record room.
(D.R TAMTA) (RITU GARODIA) (A.S YADAV)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
