BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
F.A.No.516/2008 AGAINST C.C.No.289/2006, DISTRICT FORUM-I, VISAKHAPATNAM.
Between:
M/s.ICICI Bank Ltd.,
Rep. by its Unit Head, Collections,
Sri Rayee Ahmed, S/o.Sri Rasheed Ahmed,
Age 35 years, r/o.5-9-2, J.V.L.Towers,
Saifabad, Hyderabad-500 004. ..Appellants/
Opp.parties
Representing the
1. M/s.ICICI Home Finance Ltd., Branch
Manager, Siripuram Fort, Waltair
Uplands, Visakhapatnam.
2. Mr.Kapil Agarwal, Zonal head for ICICI
Home Finance Ltd., Visakhapatnam,
Siripuram Post Waltair Uplands,
Visakhapatnam. Opp.parties in
CC No.289/2006.
O.P.2 not in service of bank and not
Necessary party for this appeal.
And
1. Smt.Digumarthy Uma Rajyalakshmi
W/o.Sri P.Harnath, Hindu, aged 36 years,
TYPE IV/S&C/TA. Unit E, opp:Railway
Station, Visakhapatnam.
2. Sri P.Haranath S/o.Krishnananda Rao,
Type IV/S&C/TA, Unit E, Opp:Railway
Station, Visakhapatnam. ..Respondents/
Complainants.
Counsel for the Appellants:Mr.B.S.Bhasara Dev
Counsel for the Respondents: M/s.V.S.Raju
F.A.No.557/2010 AGAINST C.C.No.289/2006, DISTRICT FORUM-I, VISAKHAPATNAM.
Between:
1. Smt.Dugumarthy Uma Rajyalakshmi
W/o.P.Harnath, aged 40 years,
R/o. H.No. TYPE IV S&C/TA. Unit E,
opp:Railway Station, Visakhapatnam.
2. Sri P.Haranath S/o.Krishnananda Rao,
45 years, R/o.Type IV S&C/TA, Unit E,
Opp:Railway Station, Visakhapatnam. Appellants/
Complainants.
And
1. M/s.ICICI Home Finance Ltd., Branch
Manager, Siripuram Fort, Waltair
Uplands, Visakhapatnam.
2. Mr.Kapil Agarwal, Zonal head for ICICI
Home Finance Ltd., Visakhapatnam,
Siripuram Post Waltair Uplands,
Visakhapatnam. Respondents/
Opposite parties
Counsel for the Appellants:M/s.V.S.Raju
Counsel for the Respondents: M/s.B.S.Bhaskara Dev
QUORUM: SMT.M.SHREESHA, MEMBER
. AND
SRI SYED ABDULLAH, MEMBER.
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER,
TWO THOUSAND TEN
(Typed to the dictation of Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)
***
Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.289/2006 on the file of District Forum-I, Visakhapatnam, opposite parties preferred F.A.No.516/2008 and the complainants preferred F.A.No.557/2010. Since both the appeals arise out of the same C.C., they are being disposed of by a common order.
The brief facts as stated in the complaint are that the complainants have taken a housing loan of Rs.7,45,000/- in all from 1st opposite party to purchase a ready building house bearing No.HIG 26, in China Mushidiwada Housing scheme allotted by Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority by submitting all relevant documents. They paid the loan instalments without any default. The complainants submitted that Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority directed them to obtain ‘no objection certificate’ for registration of the said house. The complainants approached 1st opposite party and it denied to issue ‘no objection certificate’ on the ground that their rules do not permit and hence they approached the 2nd opposite party also refused to issue the said certificate. It is the case of the complainants as per the rules of on allotment of house, they have to register the sale deed by paying the cost of the house failing which the allotment will be cancelled. The complainants submitted that inspite of repeated requests and several attempts from 5th April, 2005 till their addressing a letter on 4-8-2005 to the opposite parties at Visakhapatnam and ICICI Bank at Mumbai, a delayed reply was given on 31-8-2005 intimating that they are ready to issue ‘No objection certificate’ by which time the complainants having lost hopes of getting ‘no objection certificate’ from opposite parties approached State Bank of India which has issued consent letter to take over from ICICI bank and also issued ‘no objection certificate to VUDA. Hence the complaint for a direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,17,568/- towards differential rate of interest amount 2.21% of service charges on outstanding amount i.e. Rs.15,955/-, penal interest charged by VUDA for belated payment and disbursal of loan granted of Rs.4,299/-, conveyance, Xerox charge of Rs.2,000/-, legal opinion and encumbrance clearance certificate charges of Rs.1,400/- together with Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony.
1st opposite party filed counter admitting that the complainants availed housing loan of Rs.7,45,000/- and the said loan transaction was taken over by State Bank of India and denied the other allegations. They contended that the complainants are no more their customers in view of the loan application being taken over subsequently by State Bank of India. They contended that the first complainant has never been frank and suppressed that she is a practicing advocate and mentioned that she is a house wife and mentioned that the title of the property will be in her name but they wanted registration in joint names. Hence they sought necessary approval from the regional office as well as Head Office with regard to issuance of ‘no objection certificate’. The procedure is either ‘no objection certificate will be issued by Head office or it will issue necessary approval to first opposite party to issue the same. But in the meanwhile the complainant got transferred the loan to State Bank of India. They submitted that they strictly followed the Banking rules and procedure and that there is no deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A7 and the pleadings put forward, the District Forum partly allowed the complaint directing opposite parties to pay Rs.35,000/- towards compensation for mental agony together with costs of Rs.2,000/-.
Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite parties preferred F.A.No.516/2008 and the complainants preferred F.A.No.557/2010.
Written arguments of ICICI bank filed. It is the case of the complainants that they have taken a housing loan of Rs.7,45,000/- from the first opposite party to purchase a house allotted by VUDA and they paid all the instalments. The complainant submits that VUDA asked for production of ‘No objection certificate’ which is evidenced under Ex.A1 letter. The complainants approached opposite party No.1 for issuance of ‘no objection certificate’ and finally wrote a letter on 4-5-2005 for which a reply was issued on 31-8-2005 intimating to the complainants that they are ready to issue no objection certificate. Since the complainant did not receive any reply for a long time, she approached SBI which issued a consent letter to take over the loan from ICICI bank and issued ‘no objection certificate’ as evidenced under Ex.A5. Ex.A6 evidences the differential cost due to take over of loan by SBI. It is the complainants’ case because of the delay by opposite party No.1, they had to pay penalty which was imposed by VUDA as evidenced under Ex.A7.
It is the appellants’ bank case that initially the complainants applied for housing loan for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- and subsequently requested for an additional loan of Rs.3,45,000/- and the same was sanctioned and disbursed. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the entire loan was taken over by SBI and as such the complainants are no longer the customers of the bank and submitted that there is no deficiency in service. After availing the loan facility, the complainant wanted registration in joint names and therefore the matter was referred to Regional Office at Hyderabad and subsequently to Head office at Mumbai for issuance of ‘No Objection Certificate’ to get the property registered in joint names. The local office at Visahapatnam has no power to issue ‘no objection certificate’ and in the mean time, the complainant got transferred the loan to SBI. If VUDA had charged penal interest, the appellants cannot be made responsible in any manner. It is also the contention of the appellant bank that the complainant mentioned in her loan application form that she is a house wife whereas she is actually a practicing advocate and that she approached the Forum with unclean hands.
We observe from the record that the appellants did not choose to file the loan application and even otherwise, if the complainant had declared in her application that she is a housewife, it should not go in the way of the bank issuing ‘no objection certificate’ and she was prompt in payment of instalments. The complainant submits that based on the certificate dated 27-1-2005, issued by VUDA addressed to the complainant as an advocate, the appellant bank had increased the loan amount to Rs.7,45,000/-. It is pertinent to note that the letter Ex.A1 issued by VUDA for production of ‘No objection certificate is dated 4-5-2005. It is the case of the complainants that it is only to avail tax benefits that they requested VUDA to execute sale deed in the joint names of the complainant and her husband and VUDA directed them to produce the ‘No objection certificate’ for registration in the joint names and the appellants firstly refused to issue such a certificate saying that it is against rules. Ex.A1 evidence that VUDA has sought for ‘No objection Certificate as early as 04-5-2005. Inspite of repeated requests, the appellants did not issue ‘No objection Certificate’ and the complainant sent a registered letter on 4-5-2005 which was acknowledged and it was only on 31-8-2005 that the bank informed the complainant that they regret inconvenience and they are ready to issue ‘No objection Certificate’. It is only because of this delay which has ensued, the complainants got the loan transferred to SBI which issued a ‘No objection Certificate’ and for the delay occurred, they had to pay the penalty charges of Rs.1,17,568/-. The appellants did not file any documentary evidence in support of their contention that there was no delay and we do not see any reasons to interfere with the well considered order of the District Forum directing them to pay reasonable compensation of Rs.35,000/-.
With respect to the complainants’ appeal for enhancement of compensation, we are of the considered view that the amount of differential cost as prayed for by the complainants cannot be awarded in the absence of any evidence to substantiate the exact penalty charges paid by the complainants to VUDA. We do not see any substantial grounds to enhance the compensation awarded by the District Forum and hold that an amount of Rs.35,000/- awarded towards compensation is just and expedient.
In the result these appeals fail and they are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
Sd/-Member.
Sd/-MEMBER.
JM Dt.29-12-2010
