Tamil Nadu
South Chennai
CC/182/2022
D. Soundararajan - Complainant(s)
Versus
Repco Home Finance and another - Opp.Party(s)
Soundararajan
22 May 2023
ORDER
Date of Complaint Filed: 27.01.2021
Date of Reservation : 28.04.2023
Date of Order : 22.05.2023
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.
PRESENT: TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L., : PRESIDENT
THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L., : MEMBER I
THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA., : MEMBER II
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.182/2022
MONDAY,THE 22NDDAY OF MAY 2023
D.Soundararajan,
Flat No.4,GRN Rivierra Apartment,
D.No.20, P.T.Rajan Salai,
K.K.Nagar,
Chennai.78. .. Complainant
-Vs-
1. The Manager,
Repco Home Finance Ltd.,
Asset Recovery Branch,
4th Main Road,
Plot No.4055, U. Block,
Anna Nagar (upstairs of PNB),
Chennai -40
2. The General Manager,
REPCO HOME FINANCE LTD.
Corporate office,
Allexandar Square (3rdfloor),
Sardar Patel Road,
Guindy,
Chennal-32. .. Opposite Parties.
* * * * * *
Counsel for the Complainant : In person,
Counsel for Opposite Parties : M/s. A.Ilangovan, Adv.,
On perusal of records and having heard the oral arguments of the Complainant in person and the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, this Commission delivered the following:
ORDER
Pronounced by the President Tmt. B. Jijaa, M.L.,
(i) The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Parties under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and prays to direct the Opposite Parties to pay/return the excess collected service charges of Rs.25,000/- with interest from the date of availing the loan i.e. from 10.10.2012 till the date of payment and to credit the wrong debit of Rs.96668/- with interest at 24% per annum from 1.12.2015 till payment and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the Complainant for various mental agony, illness, torture, unfair and unethical behaviour of the staff with the Complainant during recovery steps which lead to the deterioration of health of the Complainant leading to severe Heart Attack and reduction of sale price of the house causing financial loss of Rs.23/- lakhs and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of the Complainant.
I. The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-
1. The Complainant submitted that at the request of the Complainant, represented by his son, the 1st Opposite Party sanctioned a Housing Loan of Rs.50,00,000/-vide their sanction letter dated 5.10.2012 in the joint names of S.Sriram, the Complainant, the property owner of the mortgaged property, and Mrs. Vijayakumari, wife of the Complainant against the Registered Equitable Mortgage of Complainant's property at Plot No.10,Bhagyam Green Meadow, Annai lndhira Gandhi Nagar,1st cross St, Okkiam Thoraipakkam Chennai, repayable at equated monthly instalment of Rs.62769/-for a period of 180 months.
2. Under Clause 19 of the above cited sanction letter the 1st Opposite Party noted a sum of Ro.75000/- is payable towards processing and Administrative fees, which amount was paid by the Complainant accordingly. However the Manager of the 1st Opposite Party, head-quartered at Ashok Nagar branch where the loan was initially sanctioned and released, conveyed to the Complainant that a sum of Rs.25000/- is returnable/refundable to him. He was under the impression that the same would have been recredited to his account immediately. But to his surprise he noticed while going through the loan account statement handed over to him at the time of closing the liability, that this sum of Rs.25000/-was not at all recredited to him, inspite of his written claim, on the oral plea this claim is belated. Hence, the Complainant submitted that this amount is liable to be recredited to him since the 1st Opposite Party has clearly exhibited his deficiency and negligence in service while dealing with the customer's account, with 24% interest from the date of loan till the amount is refunded to him.
3. The Complainant further submitted that after closure of the loan account, he noticed through the account statement dated 17.11.2020, that the Bank had disbursed further loan of Rs.96,668/- on 1.12.2015 and this information was further confirmed vide their whats app message, dated 26.10.2020. This disbursed amount was not credited to the Complainant's account nor the Complainant enjoyed the disbursed amount, nor this information was ever communicated to him in writing. The bank has no locus standi to claim this amount or include in the settlement process and this action clearly exhibits deficiency and negligence in extending the service and this wrong debit has to be recredited with interest at 24% from 1.12.2015 till the same is recredited or paid.
4. The Complainant submitted that both the above two said sums were not recredited at the time of closure of the loan account. Since the Complainant came to know about this matter after closure of the loan account, the Complainant chose to send a registered letter dated 01.12.2020 (copy enclosed) calling upon the Bank to refund failed to respond to his notice and nor even they chose to reply this notice. Hence this complaint is filed with a prayer that both Rs.25000/- and Rs. 96668/- have to be refunded to the Complainant from the dates abovementioned on the ground of deficiency and negligent service on their part.
5. The mortgaged property standing in the name of the Complainant was already purchased on 18.7.2012 out of own funds of the Complainant only. But the loan of Rs.5,00,000/- was sanctioned by the first Opposite Party, only on 10.10.2012 after 2½ months that too under the Head ‘ HousingLoan’ contrary to usual norms causing a technical error, and the loan proceeds was directly credited to the Complainant's S.B. account only. For repayment of the loan, he submitted his project report that instalments will be remitted out of rental income, wife's salary and agricultural income of the Complainant. However for processing purpose, they treated his son, who was employed in Nokia as a main borrower. The monthly EMI was Rs. 62769/- and for one year it comes to Rs.7,53,228/-. During 2013, he remitted Rs.6,79,424/- and 2014-Rs.678500/- as against Rs.753228/- short fall of nearly one EMI. After closure of Nokia in India, his son lost his job. He was also having housing loan dues with other Bank for purchasing a property in his own name. Due to his unemployment and poor agricultural income from his property, there was some irregularity in his loan account. The Complainant repeatedly contacting the Bank at Ashok Nagar to explain his financial problem.
6. In spite of his sincerity in making repayments, at times in lumpsum, despite all financial difficulties, the representatives of the first Opposite Party frequently visited the Complainant and gave all sorts of pressure by threatening to bring the property to sale in auction, without any human consideration and also without taking into account the repayments made frequently despite his son's unemployment and strain in borrowing money from friends and relatives.
7. The Complainant further submitted that following amounts were remitted during subsequent years, as against yearly commitment of Rs.753228/-.
2015 …. Rs.8,08,668/-
2016 …. Rs.6,60,000/-
2017 …. Rs.10,67,000/-
However on 20.9.2017,the Complainant gave a letter dated 20.9.2017 to the first Opposite Party, conveying his decision to sell the mortgaged property on account of financial difficulties in repaying the monthly EMl and recovery torture of the staff of the Opposite Parties and in fact took a sale advance of Rs.1.00 lac from one Mr. V. Ramalingam on 6.9.2017. But the sale could not materialize an account of some technical defects in the planning permit as pointed out by the buyer's advocate, while scrutinizing the title deeds. A copy of the lawyer's opinion was also given to the first Opposite Party.
8. The Complainant further submitted that the advocate of the 1st Opposite Party also failed to notice these lapses while scrutinizing the title deeds before sanction of the loan. Had the lapses been noticed at that time,
Complainant could have taken steps for getting regularization by competent authority. It is due to the negligent and deficient service rendered by the connected people associated with sanction of the loan, the Complainant could not sell the property to that prospective buyer. In the above letter, the Complainant also pointed out these lapses to the first Opposite Party.
9. The Complainant further submitted that with great difficulty and strain, he borrowed and remitted a sum of Rs.6,00,500/- on 30.12.2017 and regularized the loan account. In the years 2018 and 2019, he had remitted Rs.5,98,336/- and Rs.7,29,000/- respectively. Even after remitting a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- on 20.12.2019, the Bank’s representatives with group of 5 people visited his house (which was rented out), and created a scene in the premises, watched by all the neighbours. Hence he gave a letter to the bank on 30.12.2019 under acknowledgement.
10. But during moratorium period also, the Bank did not spare me and was making repeated calls threatening legal action. During this LOCK DOWN, prospective buyers were also limited and he could not finalise any deal. The cumulative tension and threats made me to suffer a massive HEARTATTACK and he was in Ventilator for 3 days and after that 5 stents were fixed in the artery. After discharge, desperately, he fixed a prospective buyer who was in his contact list and agreed for a sale price of Rs.1.07 crores as against the market price of Rs.1.30 crores. The Bank's repeated threads inspite of his decision to sell the house caused me a financial loss of 23.00 lacs apart from medical expenses of nearly Rs.7.00 lacs.
11. But hardly within 20 days of receipt of Complainant's letter, the first Opposite Party chose to send a registered notice u/s 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security interest Act, 2002 and directed for closure of the dues within 60 days from 13.10.2017. The approach on the part of the first Opposite Party was highly arbitrary and in human approach and the Complainant and his family had to undergo sleepless nights and the Complainant had to beg with friends and relatives unable to bear the mental tension, given by the staff of the 1st Opposite Party subsequent to the issue of notice, by affixing sale notice on the doors of mortgaged premises.
12. The Complainant further submitted that the 1st Opposite Party has breached the oral contract of returning the excess collected service charges of Rs.25,000/- thereby violating the Law under Section 6(iv)(d) of Consumer Protection Act. Hence the complaint.
II. Written version of 1st Opposite Party and adopted by the 2nd Opposite Party are as follows:
13. The 1st Opposite Party submitted that the dispute raised by the Complainant does not fall within the ambit of the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Therefore, the above Complainant does not fall within the definition of "Consumer" as per 2(7) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. As such, the above Complaint is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. The cause of action as alleged in the complaint that the alleged dispute which took place on 05.12.2012 and on 01.12.2015 respectively as such the complaint itself clearly barred by the limitation as prescribed under Section 69 of the Act.
14. The 1st Opposite Party submitted that a Cursory reading of the above
complaint shows that would demonstrate the fact that the Complainant was a defaulter and proceedings under SARFAESI taken against him. The Complainant has given a OTS proposal for waiver of exorbitant amount in the loan account. However the same was considered in accordance with the polices of the 1st Opposite Party accordingly he was directed to pay a sum of Rs.45,47,000/- vide their letter dated 12.11.2020. The terms of the OTS letter was accepted and agreed by the Complainant and he had paid the said amount of Rs.45,47,000/- without any protest or disapproval. As on 17.11.2020 the Complainant is liable to pay Rs.50,04,400.66/- and he had availed a concession of Rs.4,57,400/- as OTS concession from the Opposite Parties. Since the Complainant failed in his attempt to settle the dues by way of OTS and on his own calculation in a desperate way of retaliation filed with the present complaint with false allegation and as such the present Complaint is liable to be rejected. The Complainant having accepted the OTS offer made by the Opposite Parties is now estopped from making any further claim from the Opposite Parties.
15. The 1st Opposite Party submitted that even as per the Complainant's own admission his son Sriram is the Principal borrower and his wife Vijayakumar is the 1st Co-Borrower to the loan account. Admittedly they are not made as parties in the present complaint as such the Complaint itself has to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties.
16. The 1st Opposite Party submitted that the Complainant's son being the
principal borrower had availed a purchase of house/Flat-Floating loan for
sum of Rs.50,00,000/- vide Loan A/c.No.1151870002882 on 05.10.2012 from the Opposite Parties branch at Ashok Nagar. The Complainant's son, the Complainant and his wife being borrower, Co-borrowers respectively had agreed to repay the said loan amount in 180 equated monthly instalments of Rs.62,769/-. As a security for the repayment the Complainant and his wife had executed an Agreement Relating to Deposit of Title Deeds dater 08.10.2012 in Doc.No.5636/2012 and in favour of the Opposite Parties.
17. The 1st Opposite Party submitted that as stated above the recovery measures are only due to the default committed by the Complainant and others as borrowers. Therefore there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties and no unfair trade practice as alleged in the complaint. Therefore the recovery measures initiated by the Opposite Party cannot be attributed as malafideness against the Complainant.
18. These Opposite Parties state that there is no pecuniary jurisdiction,
territorial jurisdiction to maintain the complaint. Besides that the claim of
the Complainant is barred by the limitation. The Complainant is not a
Consumer, as Such the complaint is not maintainable. There is no cause of
action for any deficiency of service. As such, the present complaint is liable
to be rejected. The Complainant did not approach this Hon'ble Commission
with clean hands and is making false allegations. As such the complaint
lacks any merits and is liable to be dismissed.
III. The Complainant has filed his proof affidavit, in support of his claim in the complaint and has filed documents which are marked as Ex.A1 to A11. The opposite parties have submitted their proof affidavit and Ex.B1 to B10 were marked on their side. Both side written arguments filed.
IV. Points for Consideration:-
1. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?
2. Whether the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?
4. Whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?
5. To what other relief, the Complainant is entitled to?
POINT NO. 1 :-
19. The Opposite Party contended that the cause of action as alleged in the complaint is that the alleged dispute took place on 05.12.2012 and on 01.12.2015, as such the complaint is clearly barred by limitation as prescribed under section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019. The contention of the Complainant is that the point of limitation was already decided by this Commission in CMP.No.10/2021, and hence the Complainant cannot raise the plea of limitation again in the complaint. It is pertinent to note that before the complaint being taken on file, the Complainant had filed CMP.No.10/2021 to condone the delay in filing the complaint where the Opposite Party remained exparte and on the basis of the document produced by the Complainant, this Commission came to the conclusion that the complaint was within the period of limitation, the Complainant having received the notice in the CMP and remained exparte cannot take defence of limitation afresh in the written version, when the same was already decided by the Commission.
20. The Opposite Party relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2009 5 SCC 121, State Bank of India –Vs – B.S. Agriculture Industries (I), where it was held that if complaint is barred by time and if the complaint is decided on merit, the Forum would be committing an illegality, which case is not applicable to the instant case as the Complainant has filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the complaint and the same was allowed by this Commission. Hence the complaint is not barred by limitation. Accordingly point No.1 is answered.
POINT NO. 2 :-
21. The other defence taken by the Opposite Parties is that the Complainant’s son Sriram is the principal borrower and his wife Vijayakumari is the 1st co-borrower to the loan account, admittedly they are not made as parties in the present complaint and as such the complaint has to be dismissed for non joinder of necessary parties. A perusal of Ex.A1 would show that, loan was sanctioned to 1. S.Sriram, 2.Vijayakumari, and 3. Soundararajan. The Opposite Parties had issued Demand Notice vide Exs.A-3, A-4 under the SARFAESI proceedings to S.Sriram, as borrower and Vijayakumari and Soudararajan as co borrowers and the acceptance of One Time Proposal (OTS) was also addressed to S.Sriram, while so the Complainant alone has filed this complaint without making his son S.Sriram, and his wife Vijayakumari, as parties to this proceedings who are all necessary parties to the complaint, as the dispute revolves around the refund of Rs.25,000/- out of Rs.75,000/- paid towards processing and administration fees of the loan and regarding the disbursal of additional loan of Rs.96669/- which loan was admittedly availed by the Complainant’s son 1. S.Sriram, his wife 2.Vijayakumari, and the Complainant 3. Soundararajan, and not made as party to this Complaint. Hence the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Accordingly point No.2 is answered.
POINT NO. 3 :-
22. The Complainant had availed a housing loan from the opposite parties for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- in the joint name of his son Mr.S.Sriram and Complainant’s wife Mrs.Vijayakumari, by creating an equitable mortgage of his property at Plot No.10, Bakiyam Green Meadow, Anna Indhira Gandhi Nagar, 1st cross street, Okiyam Thoraipakkam, Chennai, repayable by Equated Monthly instalments of Rs.62,769/-for a period of 180 months. The Complainant contended that 1st Opposite Party had collected a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards processing and administrative fees. However, the Manager of the 1st Opposite Party had assured of returning a sum of Rs.25,000/- and he had also obtained a suitable letter from him. Further at the time of closure of the loan account, he had noticed through his account statement dated 17.11.2020, that the bank has disbursed further loan of Rs.96,668/- on 1.12.2015, which was further confirmed by their whats app message on 26.10.2020. The said sum of Rs.96,668/- was not credited to the Complainant’s account nor the Complainant enjoyed the disbursed amount which was never communicated to him in writing. Hence the Complainant sought for refund of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.96,668/- from the opposite parties.
23. The Opposite Parties contended that the Complainant’s son Sriram being the principal borrower had availed loan for sum of Rs.50,00,000/- vide loan A/c No.1151870002882 on 05.10.2012 from the Opposite Parties branch at Ashok Nagar. The Complainant’s son, Sriram, the Complainant and his wife being borrower, co-borrowers respectively had agreed to repay the said loan amount in 180 equated monthly instalments of Rs.62,769/- . It is submitted that, as a security for the repayment of the loan availed, the Complainant and his wife had executed an Agreement relating to Deposit of Title Deeds dated 08.10.2012 in Doc.No.5636/2012 to and in favour of the Opposite Parties. As per clause 19 of the sanction letter dated 05.10.2012, Ex.A-1 which was agreed and signed by the parties stipulates as follows:
“The borrower shall remit the following amount before release of loan with service tax as applicable from time to time
- Processing & Administration Fees Rs.75,000/-“
24. A reading of the above clause would make it clear that the processing and administrative fee for disbursal of loan is Rs.75,000/- and the same was collected by the Opposite Party from the Complainant and the allegations that the Complainant was assured by the 2nd Opposite Party to refund a sum of Rs.25,000/- out of Rs.75,000/- is not substantiated by any documentary evidence. Even the letter obtained from the Manager as alleged by the Complainant was also not produced by the Complainant. As per Ex.A1 it is evident that the processing and administrative fee for disbursal of loan is Rs.75,000/-, which the Opposite Party had collected from the Complainant and the case of the Complainant that he is entitled for refund of Rs.25,000/- is not substantiated by proper evidence.
25. As regards, disbursal of Rs.96,668/- in the loan account of the Complainant on 01.12.2015, the Opposite Party contended that the said sum is two months interest capitalisation which was given as moratorium for the person residing in flood affected area during 2015. A perusal of the statement of account of the Complainant, Ex.B9 would reveal that on 09.11.2015, a sum of Rs.46,508/- towards interest due, which was added with next month interest of Rs.50,146/- and in all a sum of Rs.96,668/- was given as moratorium to the Complainant and the said amount was added in the principal as per the circular dated 15.12.2015, Ex.B2, issued by the Corporate Office of the Opposite Parties.
26. A perusal of Ex.A3,A5,A7,A8 and A9, which are the letters issued by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties expressing his financial difficulties in repayment of loan which would show that he was not regular in payment of equated monthly instalments. As per Ex.B3 and B4 the Opposite Parties has initiated SARFEASI proceedings against the Complainant. Thereafter the Complainant had come forward for one time settlement and on his requisition the Opposite Party bank by letter dated 12.11.2017, Ex.B5, had approved for accepting the OTS amount of Rs.45,47,000 /- towards full and final settlement of loan account NO. ARB 00588 of Sriram, the son of the Complainant. Subsequently the Complainant had paid the OTS amount and No objection certificate, Ex.B8 was also issued by the Opposite Parties on 17.11.2020. The contention of the Opposite Parties is that after accepting the OTS and availing waiver of Rs.4,67,400/- in repayment of the loan, the Complainant is estopped from claiming any amount from the Opposite Parties.
27. The Opposite Parties has placed reliance on the Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2002 (2) MLJ 75 (SC), Haryana Financial Corporation and another –Vs- Jagdamba Oil Mills and another wherein it was held that only when the action of the administrative authority is unfair or unreasonable the court can intervene. The power of the court, while reviewing the administrative action is not that of an appellate court, unless his action is malafide, even a wrong decision by it is not open to challenge, which case is applicable to the present case at hand as the action of the Opposite Parties is without malafide, and the same cannot be reviewed by this Commission.
28. As regards the contention of the Opposite Parties that after one time settlement there is no relationship between the Complainant and the Opposite Parties as banker and customer and the Complainant ceases to be a customer, the Opposite Parties relied upon the order of the Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2016 (1) C.P.R. 398, Harpal Ariya –Vs- Housing Board, Haryana Estate Manager, where it was held that once the Complainant had taken possession with open eyes and without any precondition he ceases to be a consumer. Even in this case, the Complainant having accepted the proposal of one time settlement from the Opposite Parties’ bank and after closure of the loan account, the Complainant ceases to be a consumer.
29. The Opposite Parties had brought to our attention the order passed by the Apex Court on 13.09.2011 in Kaveri Coffee Traders, Mangalore- VS- Harman Resources (Intern) Company Limited wherein it was held that “Law does not permit a person to both approbate and reprobate. This principle is based on the doctrine or election which postulates that no party can accept and reject the same instrument and that a person cannot say at one time say that a transaction is valid and thereby obtain some advantage, to which he could only be entitled on the footing that it is valid, and then turn, round and say it is void for the purpose of securing some other advantage”. In the present case the Complainant after accepting the one time settlement for closure of the loan account cannot at later point of time question the same seeking a refund of certain amounts out of the loan account that was already settled between the parties.
30. The Opposite Party relied upon the judgement of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala passed on 31.7.2015, in D.Raghu and others -Vs- State Bank of Travancore, wherein it was held that the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has no jurisdiction to stay the recovery proceedings under the Act. As the Complainant had not challenged the recovery proceedings initiated against the Complainant under the SARFEASI Act, the judgement is not applicable to the present case.
31. In view of the discussion made above, on perusal of records and on the basis of the case laws produced by the Opposite Parties, this Commission is of the considered view that the Opposite Parties had acted upon the terms of contract and the Complainant being defaulter in repaying the monthly instalments, and after availing the one time settlement from the Opposite Parties’ bank by getting waiver of some amount cannot claim compensation and the refund of Rs.25,000/- towards part refund of processing fee and a sum of Rs.96,668/-, which is the moratorium amount deposited by the Opposite Parties, which amounts the Complainant is not entitled to claim from the Opposite Parties. The Complainant had failed to substantiate his claim and had failed to prove that the Opposite Parties had committed deficiency in service. Accordingly Point No.3 is answered.
POINT NO: 4 & 5:
32. As discussed and decided in Points No 1 to 3, the Opposite Parties have not committed any deficiency in service, hence the Complainant is not entitled for the reliefs claimed in the complaint or for any other relief from the Opposite Party. Accordingly this point is answered.
In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 22nd day of May 2023.
S. NANDAGOPALAN T.R. SIVAKUMHAR B.JIJAA
MEMBER II MEMBER I PRESIDENT
List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-
Ex.A1 | 05.10.2012 | Xerox copy of the loan sanction letter of Opposite Parties. |
Ex.A2 | 17.11.2020 | Xerox copy of loan account statement issued by the Opposite Parties. |
Ex.A3 | 13.07.2017 | Xerox copy of letter sent by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties. |
Ex.A4 | 06.09.2017 | Xerox copy of stamped receipt given by V.Ramalingam. |
Ex.A5 | 20.09.2017 | Xerox copy of the letter sent by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties. |
Ex.A6 | 13.10.2017 | Xerox copy of Notice sent by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant. |
Ex.A7 | 30.12.2019 | Xerox copy of the letter sent by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties. |
Ex.A8 | 19.10.2020 | Xerox copy of the letter sent by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties. |
Ex.A9 | 01.12.2020 | Xerox copy of the letter sent by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties. |
Ex.A10 | 07.12.2020 | Xerox copy of Postal acknowledgement card signed by the Opposite Party. |
Ex.A11 | 09.09.2020 | Final Bill copy of SIMS |
List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:-
Ex.B1 |
| Xerox copy of the loan sanction letter of Opposite Parties. |
Ex.B2 | 15.12.2015 | Xerox copy of Circular issued by the Repco Home Finance (Opposite Parties). |
Ex.B3 | 13.10.2017 | Xerox copy of Demand Notice 13 (2) with acknowledgement and return cover. |
Ex.B4 | 25.11.2017 | Xerox copy of Demand Notice 13 (2) published in English daily :The New Indian Express”. |
Ex.B5 | 12.11.2020 | Xerox copy of OTS approval letter |
Ex.B6 | 17.11.2020 | Xerox copy of loan outstanding before OTS. |
Ex.B7 | 17.11.2020 | Xerox copy of loan outstanding after OTS. |
Ex.B8 |
| Xerox copy of the loan closure letter. |
Ex.B9 | 16.08.2022 | Xerox copy of DCB statements of Complainant loan accounts. |
Ex.B10 |
| Xerox copy of Encumbrance certificate. |
S. NANDAGOPALAN T.R. SIVAKUMHAR B.JIJAA
MEMBER II MEMBER I PRESIDENT
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
Bhanu Pratap
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)
Bhanu Pratap
Featured RecomendedHighly recommended!
Experties
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Phone Number
7982270319
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.