Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/10/2016

M/s.E.Muralikrishnan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Standard Charted Bank - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.G.Peranban

11 Feb 2022

ORDER

                                                                   Complaint presented on :08.12.2015

                                                                                Date of disposal : 11.02.2022

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. J. JUSTIN DAVID, M.A., M.L.        : PRESIDENT

THIRU. S. BALASUBRAMANIAN, M.A., M.L.          : MEMBER

 

C.C. No.10/2016

 

DATED THIS FRIDAY THE 11^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

 

Mr. E. Muralikrishnan,

Proprietor of M/s Dynasty Marble &

Granite Enterprises,

No.11A, Katchaleeswarar Agraharam Street,

Chennai – 600 001.     

                                                                                                 .. Complainant.   

..Vs..

 

 

Standard Charted Bank,

Internal Services and Logistics Department

Reptd. By the Authorised Officer,

No.19, Rajajai Salai, 2^nd Floor,

Chennai – 600 001.                                                             ..  Opposite party.

 

Counsel for the complainant                  : M/s. G. Peranban

 

Counsel for the opposite party              : M/s. R & P Partners

 

ORDER

THIRU. J. JUSTIN DAVID, PRESIDENT

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to return the Original Rectification deed and to return the CMDA Approved Plan, Original Property tax receipt and Encumbrance Certificate which were deposited by the complainant in respect of Home Loan availed with the Opposite party and direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and mental agony along with cost of the complaint.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant is a proprietor of M/s Dynasty Marble & Granite Enterprises. The complainant had availed home loan with the opposite party in respect of one Loan Account No.47838469, wherein, the complainant surrendered his original sale deed dated 21.04.2003 (Registered Document No.1585 of 2003 of S.R.O Kodambakkam), Original Rectification deed dated 30.04.2003 (Registered Document No.1725 of 2003 of S.R.O Kodambakkam), Original Construction Agreement, CMDA Approved Plan, Original Property ax receipt and Encumbrance Certificate. The said loan amount was fully collected by the opposite party on 20.03.2013 and the above said complainant account was closed and called by the opposite party to collect the said original documents which were surrendered by the complainant at the time of granting the loan.          The complainant approached the opposite party in the month of April 2013 under the customer care of opposite party officials to receive the original documents. The opposite party informed to the complainant that only the Original Sale deed dated 21.04.2003 (Registered Document No.1585 of 2003 of S.R.O Kodambakkam) and Construction Agreement alone were available and seeking further time to trace the other document. Thereupon from that day onwards the complainant approached the opposite party several times through helpline, customer care, mail, in person to receive the original documents. But the opposite party postponed the complainant lawful request day to day. But nothing was happened and the opposite party committed deficiency in service to return the document. On 03.07.2013, the opposite party has sent a letter to the complainant requesting to provide the acknowledgement copy of submitting the documents of Corporation tax receipt and rectification deed intentionally to postpone the issue further. Finally the complainant after so many efforts on 30.03.2015 the complainant collected the Original Sale Deed dated 21.04.2003 (Registered Document No.1585 of 2003 of S.R.O Kodambakkam) and Construction Agreement alone subject to non availability of Original Rectification deed dated 30.04.2003 (Registered Document No.1725 of 2003 of S.R.O. Kodambakkam), CMDA Approved Plan, Original Property tax receipt and Encumbrance Certificate.   The complainant having  categorical doubt on the opposite party that is they should have misplaced or misused the complainant’s documents. Therefore the complainant issued legal notice to the opposite party on 24.0.2015 and the opposite party received the same and replied denying the complaint. The attitude of the opposite party is nothing but deficiency in service. In spite of repeated requests by the complainant the opposite party has not chosen to rectify the defects and have miserably failed and neglected to perform their obligations. Due to the inexplicable and indifferent attitude of the opposite party, the complainant has suffered heavy financial loss and has also been put to severe mental pain and agony. No amount of money can compensate the mental sufferings of the complainant by the opposite party. Hence this complaint.

2.WRITTENVERSION FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. The opposite party is a Banking company which accepts deposits from the customers and also offers credit facilities such as Housing Loan, Personal Loan, Credit Card, Overdraft facility, Business Installment Loan etc., to the customers. Based on the application form duly signed by the complainant and the other requisite documents provided, the loan account bearing number: 47838469, under the category “SME LAP Residential” had been opened on August 31, 2009. The above said loan had been funded basis the collateral documents. The collateral documents are a form of secondary protection sometimes required by  bank and intended to guarantee a borrower’s performance on a debt obligation. Hence in accordance to the above, post the necessary verification, the below collateral documents have been collected as security i.e.,

1. Original ale deed dated 21.08.2003, Document No.1585/2003 in favour of Mr. E.Murali Krishnaa
2. Original Construction Agreement dated 06.03.2003 between Mr. Murali Krishnaa and M/s Arvind Builders.

The opposite party had time and again clarified the concerns of the complainant both verbally and vide written correspondence. In fact on receipt of the legal notice dated August 24, 2015, a response had been tendered on October 01, 2015. The Opposite party had requested the complainant to provide the acknowledgement from the Bank indicating submission of documents however the same had not been provided.The present complaint has been filed with Malafide intention only with an intention to malign the name of the opposite parties and implicate the opposite party Bank for unjust enrichment at the cost of the opposite party Bank. It is settled position of law that any act which is done in bonafide discharge of duty cannot be termed as negligent or deficient. It is clear and proved beyond doubt that there is no deficiency in service by the opposite party therefore the complainant is not entitled for any amount as compensation.

 

 

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Where there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
2. Whether the opposite party is liable to return the original documents stating in the complaint?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation and cost?
4. To what other reliefs the complainant is entitled?

4.POINT NO :1& 2

        The case of the complaint is that the complainant is a proprietor of M/s. Dynasty Marble & Granite Enterprises and availed Home Loan from the opposite party by surrendering the Original sale deed, Original rectification deed, Original Construction Agreement, CMDA Approved Plan, Original Property tax and the Encumbrance Certificate. The complainant further alleged the said loan was closed on 20.03.2013 and the opposite party  return the original sale deed and construction agreement on 30.03.2015 and failed to return the remaining documents and committed deficiency in service.

          05. The opposite party contended the complainant obtained loan from the opposite party on the basis of collateral documents namely original sale deed dated 21.08.2003 and original construction agreement dated 06.03.2003, the complainant closed the account and the opposite party returned the said original documents and the complainant has not produced any acknowledgement to the banking indicating the submission of remaining documents to the bank and therefore  there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

          06. The complainant is a proprietor of M/s. Dynasty Marble & Granite Enterprises. The complainant availed a loan of Rs.2 lakhs for his business expansion from the opposite party during August 2009. The complainant in the complaint and in the proof affidavit stated that he availed Home Loan from the opposite party. That is not correct. The opposite party filed Ex.B1 copy of loan application form in which it is clearly stated the complainant requested loan of Rs.2 lakhs for his business expansion. Therefore the complainant has approached this Commission with unclean hands.  Therefore the complainant is not a Consumer Under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

          07. It is admitted by both parties that the complainant repaid the entire loan and closed the loan on 20.03.2013, but the complainant has not collected the original documents from the opposite party and therefore the opposite party has written a letter to the complainant on 04.04.2013 to collect the documents from Local Phone Banking Unit . Ex.A1 is the copy of letter written by the opposite party to the complainant on 04.04.2013. Therefore on 27.05.2013 the complainant written a letter to the opposite party stating that the opposite party have not returned the original Home Documents. Ex.A3 is the copy of letter. The opposite party has written a reply on 03.07.2013 stating that the original sale deed and original sale agreement is available in the bank and request the complainant to provide an acknowledgement copy for submission of a corporation tax receipt and rectification deed to the opposite party. Ex.A2 is the copy of letter dated 03.07.2013. The complainant on 30.03.2015 received the original sale deed and original construction agreement from the Bank and made an endorsement in the letter stating that the CMDA approved plan, corporation tax and EC copy to be returned  by the opposite party. Ex.A4 is the copy of letter dated 26.03.2015 written by the opposite party to the complainant  in which the complainant made an endorsement stating that he has not received the CMDA approved plan, corporation tax and EC copy. The case of the complainant is that the opposite party has not returned the original rectification deed, CMDA approved plan, Corporation tax and EC but in the endorsement, the complainant has not mentioned about the return of rectification deed by the opposite party.

          08. The opposite party had written many communication to the complainant asking the complainant to provide the acknowledgement issued by the opposite party for  the receipt of rectification deed, property plan, corporation tax receipt and Encumbrance Certificate, but the complainant has not produced the acknowledgement or proof  and on the other hand,  the opposite party filed the copy of legal opinion issued by the Advocate to the Bank  on 29.08.2009. Ex.A3 is the copy of legal opinion it is clearly stated that critical documents original of document No.3 & 4 listed above, that is Sale Deed dated 21.08.2003  Document No.1585/2003 and construction agreement dated 06.03.2013. Therefore the said 2 critical documents were submitted by the complainant to the opposite party at the time of sanctioning the loan. The said two documents were returned to the complainant. The complainant has not filed any acknowledgement to show that he surrender the Original rectification deed dated 30.04.2003, CMDA approved plan, original property tax receipt and Encumbrance Certificate to the opposite party at the time of availing a business loan.

          09. The Complainant availed business loan and surrender the original Sale Deed and rectification deed to the opposite party and the same were returned to the complainant. Therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the opposite party  is not liable to return the documents stated in the complaint and the complainant is not entitled for compensation and cost.

 

 

 

10. POINT NO :3

Since the Opposite Party has not committed any deficiency in service, the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.     

Dictated  by the President to the Assistant taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 11^th day of February 2022.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 04.04.2013          Communication by opposite party Loan closure  intimation

Ex.A2 dated 03.07.2013          Communication by opposite party    

Ex.A3 dated 27.05.2013          Grievance Letter to Opposite party     \

Ex.A4 dated 26.03.2015          Communication by opposite party    

Ex.A5 dated 02.04.2015          Mail Communication to the opposite party

Ex.A6 dated 23.04.2015          Mail Communication to the opposite party

Ex.A7 dated 13.05.2015          Mail Communication to the opposite party 

Ex.A8 dated 24.08.2015          Legal notice to opposite party

Ex.A9 dated 01.10.2015          Reply notice by opposite party

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY

Ex.B1 dated 24.08.2009          Application form

Ex.B2 dated 28.08.2009          Sanction Letter & Agreement

Ex.B3 dated 29.08.2009          Lawyer’s Report  

Ex.B4 dated 17.03.2015          E-mail communications 

Ex.B5 dated 24.08.2015          Legal notice sent by the Complainant and

                          &                   Response by the Opposite party

                    01.10.2015

 

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT