Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/12/2017

N.S.Abdul Jaleel - Complainant(s)

Versus

Standard Charterd Bank - Opp.Party(s)

J.Deliban

02 Jun 2022

ORDER

                                                                     Complaint presented on :11.11.2016                                                                       Date of disposal            :02.06.2022

                                                                                  

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. G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.,                          :PRESIDENT

                                      TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN, M.E.,                         : MEMBER-I

                              THIRU.V.RAMAMURTHY,B.A.,B.L.,PGDLA.,   :MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No.12/2017

 

DATED THURSDAY THE 02^nd   DAY OF JUNE 2022

                                

1.N.S.Abdul Jaleel

2.Salma Jaleel

Both are residing at

No.11^th cross street,

Sastri Nagar, Adayar,

Chennai-600 020

                                                                                               …..Complainants

 ..Vs..

Standard Charterd Bank

Rep.by its Authorised Officer,

No.9, Rajaji Salai,

Chennai-600 101.

 

.....Opposite Party

Counsel for Complainant                   : M/s.J.Deliban

 

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

ORDER

 

THIRU. G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L., PRESIDENT :

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays direct the opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and also directing the opposite party to return the  mortgage deeds executed by the petitioners in favour of the opposite party and also the documents deposited by them without any demand to return within 15 days.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant submitted that they had approached the opposite party for loan by way of mortgaging the property more fully described in schedule mentioned property which is in the name of the first complainant and obtained loan of Rs.25,00,000/- being principal amount at contractual rate of interest at 10% as levied by the opposite party bank on 06.09.2004.  This amount has to be repaid by the complainant in 84 monthly instalments of Rs.41,502.96.  The complainants paid the entire amount and asked for the return of the document from the opposite party.  Inspite of repeated demands the opposite party has not returned the documents.  The opposite party illegally and unlawfully got possession of the property under Sarfaesi Act.  The complainant filed application under Sarfaesi Act and got order of possession set aside in S.A.No.88 of 2012 on 07.08.2014.  The opposite party remained absent in S.A.No.88/2012 and for the notice of the complainants counsel and they have received the notice and not responded.  The complainant submitted that as per order passed by DRT court the petitioners paid Rs.3,94,950/- by way of State Bank of Mysore Bankers Cheque dt.04.07.2012 and also bank debited ECS for a sum of Rs. 41,502.96 on 18.06.2012 from petitioners bank account thus the entire amount was paid by the petitioners as per the DRT

court order.  The DRT finally in S.A.NO.88.2012ordered as counsel for applicant present Proof of service filed.  The respondent bank has received notice on  20.06.2012 however there is no representation for the opposite party bank when the matter is called to-day.  As per letter dt.31.05.2012 the outstanding amount mentioned by the opposite party bank has been paid  by the applicant and the applicant counsel has endorsed to that effect in the same letter.  Since the opposite party bank is also not coming forwarded, it appears that the account of the applicant stands settled and S.A.stands withdrawn.  On 12.11.2014  the opposite party written a letter asking the complainants to pay a sum of Rs.3,68,985.14.  Even thereafter inspite of correspondences the opposite party has not returned documents for no reason. There is deficiency in service on the part of them. Hence the complaint.     

2.WRITTEN VERSION FILED BY OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:-

          The opposite party further takes objection to the extent that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act.  The grievance of the complainant if any can only be redressed by a competent civil court and not before this forum.  The opposite party stated that the Complainant availed loan against the property for a sum of Rs.25,22,00/- and the same was approved in the month of august 2008. The opposite party further states that as per terms and conditions of the agreement the said EMIs/tenor were subject to change as the agreed Rate of interest was floating. The opposite party further states that it Is not true that the complainant had paid the entire loan amount. The opposite party further states the complainant was irregular in paying monthly dues. Since the complainant defaulted in making the payment, the account was termed as non performing assest as per the guidelines issued by the reserve bank of india and the opposite party was constrained to initiate action under sarfaesi act for recovery of 

the loan due to the opposite party. the opposite party states that the complainant filed an application under SARFAESI Act and DRT has passed on the version forth by the complainant without the presentation of the opposite party and the same was withdrawn by the complainant. Moreover the order the order passed by the DRT was not a conculded order.The present complaint has been filed with malafide intention to malign the name of the opposite party and implicate the opposite party for unjust enrichment at the cost of the opposite party. WE are not held liable to pay any amount as compensation. Complaint has been only to harass the opposite party and to tarnish its reputation in its field of service, it is submitted that the above complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.

        The complainant filed proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to A11were marked on his side.  The opposite party filed proof affidavit and Ex.B1 to B5 were marked on the opposite party side.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part opposite parties as alleged in the complaint. ?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed in the complaint.     If, so to what extent?

4. POINT NO :1

          There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the complainants obtained loan of Rs.25,00,000/- by mortgaging the property of the complainant at the rate of interest 10% the loan was barrowed on 06.09.2004 which has to be repaid in 84 EMI of Rs.41502.96/- according to the complainants it is alleged that even after making entire payment of loan amount and inspite of repeated demands made by the complainants the opposite party failed to return the documents to the

complainants and therefore the complainants claimed that there is deficiency in service and directed the opposite party to return the documents and also pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation.

          5. But, according to the opposite party it contended that the grievance of the complainant can only be redressed by a competent civil court and not by this forum.  Further according to the opposite party as per the conditions of the loan agreement the EMI were subject to change as the agreed rate of interest was floating.  According to bank the complainants was irregular in paying monthly instalments and still there is balance amount due and hence the account become non performing asset and opposite party constrained to take action under Sarfeasi Act for recovery of loan amount.  It is further contended that the complainant filed application before DRT questioning the possession taken under Sarfeasi Act and DRT has passed an order based on the version of complainant alone and it is not a concluded order.  The opposite party replied to the letters of the complainant on 30.07.2014, 02.08.2014 and 12.11.2014 and pending dues were explained in those letters while so the complainant in order to get unjust enrichment with malifide intention to spoil the reputation of the opposite party has filed this complaint vexatioussly.

          6. By relying upon Ex.A1 the complainant alleged that the balance amount of Rs.4,36,449/- claimed by the bank was paid by the complainant by a debit from his account a sum of Rs.41,502.96/- on 18.06.2012 and after adjusting that the amount the complainant has taken a banker’s Cheque for Rs.394950.00/- on 04.07.2012 and thus paid entire amount which is stated in Ex.A4 but on the other hand it is found from the statement of account which is marked as Ex.B4 that on 26.05.2012 the balance amount payable in respect of the loan is Rs.647178.60/- and not the amount as found in Ex.A1.  The payment of  Rs. 41502.96 and Rs.394950.00/- by the complainant was adjusted towards loan amount on 19.06.2012 and 04.08.2012 and there was also payment of Rs.3500/- and Rs.20000/- on 16.08.2012 and even thereafter there was still a balance of Rs. 220339.16/- which later with penal interest accumulated to Rs. 533995.09 as on 30.09.2013 which is the balance of loan amount payable by the complainants.  But suppressing above details the complaint has been filed as if the entire loan amount was repaid.  Under Ex.B5 the opposite party informed the complainants that as on 21.02.2012 the balance is Rs.591376.62/- .  But the complainants by taking advantage of the DRT order which is marked as Ex.A5, dated: 03.10.2012 alleged that entire amount was settled but, on perusal of Ex.A5 it is found that is not a final order passed on merits by hearing the both parties. Further the DRT proceedings were initiated by the complainants only questioning the possession notice given under the Sarfeasi Act.   Based on the version of the complainant alone in that order it is stated it is appears that the account to the applicant stand settled and SA stands withdrawn. But actually the entire amount was not settled on that date as found in Ex.B4 statement of account filed by the opposite party.  Therefore when there is  balance of loan amount the opposite party will not return the documents to the complainants until entire loan amount is paid when the loan is outstanding it is not open to the complainant to seek return of documents and mortgage deed.  Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  Point No. 1 is answered accordingly.

7. Point No. 2:-

Based on the findings point No.1, the  complainants are not entitled for any of the reliefs claimed in the complaint and point No.2 is  answered accordingly.

 

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

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 02^nd day of  June 2022.

MEMBER – I                MEMBER – II                                 PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1	31.05.2012	Demand notice given by the opposite party asking to pay Rs.436449/-
Ex.A2		Case filed in the DRT-1
Ex.A3	19.06.2012	Complainant advocate notice by registered post to the respondent to appear on 06.07.2012 in DRT-1
Ex.A4	24.07.2012	Covering letter sent by the complainants  to the opposite party along with Banker’s cheque for Rs.394950/-
Ex.A5	03.10.2012	Copy of DRT-1 order in SA.88/2012
Ex.A6	20.10.2012	Complainants letter to the opposite party requesting to return the original documents
Ex.A7	17.11.2012	Reminder letter sent to the respondent by the complainant.
Ex.A8	30.07.2014	Opposite party letter to the complainant ‘stating our complaint is already registered’
Ex.A9	02.08.2014	Opposite party letter requesting the complainants to send a copy of DRT-1 order
Ex.A10	12.11.2014	Letter sent by the opposite party to the complainants asking to pay Rs.268985.14(After 14 months of DRT-1 order)
Ex.A11	20.03.2015	Copy of the notice given by the complainants advocate to the opposite party.

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY:

Ex.B1	28.08.2004	Sanction letter
Ex.B2		Agreement for loan against property
Ex.B3	23.03.2012	Memorandum of entry
Ex.B4	06.09.2004 to 30.09.2017	Statement of account
Ex.B5	24.02.2012	Notice under section 13(2) of Sarfaesi Act, 2002.

 

 

MEMBER – I                MEMBER – II                                 PRESIDENT