Date of Filing : 04-09-2015
Date of Order : 08-10-2018
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I
AT HYDERABAD
P r e s e n t
SRI P. VIJENDER, B.Sc., L L B, PRESIDENT
SMT. D.NIRMALA, B.Com., L L B MEMBER
MONDAY THE 8th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2018
Consumer Case No. 493 /2015
Between:
- Mr.Uday Kumar Belde,,
S/o. Late Narayana Gupta, Aged about 46 years,
Occ: Business
- Smt Laxmi Belde, W/o. Mr.B.Uday Kumar Belde,,
Aged about 38 years, Occ: Business,.
Both are R /o. H.No.1-8-149,, Chikkadpally,
Arora College backside, Hyderabad – 500 020. ……Complainant
A N D
- Sri IP Ananda Rao,
Nodal Officer, Standard Chartered Bank,
Ground Floor, Unit No.2, 2A & 3,
Ashok Bhoopal Chambers,
Secunderabad, Telangana State.
- Manager,
Standard Chartered Bank, ….Opposite parties.
Ground Floor, Unit No.2, 2A & 3,
Ashok Bhoopal Chambers,
Secunderabad, Telangana State.
Counsel for the complainant : M/s. G Deepthi
Counsel for the opposite party : M/s. Lotus Law Associates.
O R D E R
( Sri P.Vijender, B.Sc. LL B , Hon’ble President on behalf of bench)
- This complaint is preferred u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and in consequence of it asking opposite parties to reimburse a sum of Rs.55,000/- which amounts stated to have been spent and interest there on at 24% p.a. from May, 2015 and further amount of Rs.1,75,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and inconvenience to the complainant.
- Complainants case is that they have availed 2 loans with account Nos.49179836 and 49179926. One loan is against the property and the other is home loan from M/s. Barclays Bank during July, 2011. As a security the original property documents were collected by opposite party. The opposite party have taken over the 2 loans of the complainants from M/s. Barclays Bank as part of portfolio purchased from it. During the transfer process M/s. Barclays bank handed over only one set of property papers to the opposite parties and other set was retained by it. The complainants have cleared the loan amount with opposite parties but failed to deliver the property documents and caused troubles from 27th April, 2015 to August, 2015.
The complainants are made several calls to the customer calling centre of opposite parties and also visited the opposite parties for collection of documents . “During the said visits they were constrained to close their Silver shop situate in Abides, Hyderabad. Opposite parties did not give proper reasons and refused to release the original documents of one property and thereby caused harassment for 3 months. Hence complainants have approached Banking Ombudsman by lodging a complaint against opposite parties. To the said complaint the opposite parties gave a reply on 4/8/2015 and finally suggested the complainant to collect the documents from one Sri Naveen Kumar an employee of the opposite parties at Bangalore. The complainants have received one set of property documents from the opposite parties at Hyderabad and the other at Bangalore.
The complainants requested the Banking Ombudsman to solve the compensation matter and same was settled on the ground that the complainants referred to in Clause 8 and with the sub clause ( 3) of clause 9.
The complainants to collect property documents at Bangalore by going there and in the process incurred an expenditure of Rs.25,000/-. For visiting Bangalore they have closed their silver shop at Hyderabad and thereby sustained business loss of Rs.30,000/- apart from name and goodwill because of closure of the shop.. Hence the present complaint.
- A common written version is filed by both the opposite parties denying their liability to pay any amount to the complainant. The substance of the written version is that the complainants have availed one loan against the property and another loan towards home loan during the July, 2011 from Barclays Bank. Opposite party No.2 had purchased some loan accounts from Barclays bank which includes two loans availed by the complainants from said bank. During the month of June, 2013 complainants 2 loan accounts were transferred from Barclays bank to opposite party No.2 bank. For 2 loans only one property was kept as collateral security . As such during the process of transfer of loan accounts of the complainants from Barclays bank to opposite party No.2 bank only one set of documents was handed over to the opposite party NO..2 . Complainants approached for the closure of the loan account in July, 2015 The loan closure formality were communicated and they were closed and documents pertaining to the property was handed over to them. During the said interlocution it was informed to the complainant that only one set of documents were transferred to opposite party NO.2 bank and the same received by it from Barclays bank. The complainants at that time informed to opposite party No.2 that they also had deposited title documents of another property situate at Chikkadpally, Hyderabad. There upon opposite party No.2 enquired with Barclays Bank and then came to know that the Barclays bank reviewed the valuation for the Commercial property and adjusted both the loans outstanding against the said Commercial property. It was further informed by the Barclays bank that the complainant did not turn up to collect the collateral documents and they were left unattended. The property documents for the complainant is demanding were not kept as collateral security for the loan availed by the complainants from Barclays bank and which were subsequently transferred to opposite party No.2 bank as part of portfolio purchase by opposite party No.2 bank. Since only one property was kept as collateral security for both the loans availed that documents of that property was transferred to opposite party No.2 bank by Barclays bank . Hence opposite party No.2 is not concerned with the documents which might have been deposited by the complainant with Barclays bank. However in order to maintain good relations to its customers opposite party NO.2 bank took pain and interacted with Barclays bank and continuously followed up with it. During that process Barclays bank had located the other set of documents and wanted the complainant visit its office to collect the same. Opposite party No.2, as a special case requested the Barclays bank to forward the said documents to it for handing over to the complainant. Accordingly those documents were handed over to the complainant by Barclays bank in August, 2015. During the interaction between complainant and opposite party No.,2 bank the complainants had no concern to travel to Bangalore for collecting the documents. The complainants had also stated that they would withdraw the complaint on receipt of documents. But after collecting the same they have gone against their words and did not file letter to the withdraw the present complaint.
Opposite party No.2 was under no obligation to get those documents from Barclays bank as same were not kept as collateral security for the loans transferred to it by Barclays bank. At no point of time the complainant informed opposite party No.2 that it would not be possible for them to collect documents from the office of the opposite party No.2 , at Bangalore.
The complainants instead of appreciating the efforts made by the opposite party No.2 to help them by getting the documents from Barclays bank have filed the present complaint with false allegations. The complainant never informed to opposite party No.2 that they are required to close the shop for going to Bangalore for the documents . Even the claim of the complainants they sustained business loss worth of Rs.30,000/- on account of the closure of the shop as to be true it is not for the benefit of the opposite party No.2 bank but to collect their own documents.
According to the complainants documents in question were not handed over to the opposite parties by the Barclays bank, the issue was already resolved by opposite party No.2 by providing documents to the complainant by securing the same from Barclays bank though they are not bound to do it but to help the complainants they have done it. The complaint is not maintainable without adding Barclays bank as a party because complainant availed loan from Barclays bank and deposited the original documents with the said bank. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed for non joinder of proper parties.
- In the enquiry stage the first complainant filed his evidence affidavit and its substance is in tune with the contents of main complaint , and exhibited 11 documents. The evidence affidavit of one sri Mukund Raghavan stated to be Manager of opposite party No.2 bank is filed on behalf of both the opposite parties and substance of his evidence affidavit is also in line with the defense taken in the written version. He also exhibited 3 documents. Both sides have filed written arguments .
- On hearing arguments and considering the material on record the following points have emerged for consideration is :
- Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite part to the complainant?
- Whether complainant is entitled for the amounts claimed from opposite parties?
- To what relief?
- Point No.1:- The documents placed on record for both sides are not in dispute. The complainant’s case is they availed a mortgage loan and a housing loan from M/s. Barclays Bank in the month of July, 2011 and as collateral security the original property documents were deposited with the Barclays bank. It is not in dispute that as part of portfolio purchased from M/s. Barclays Bank, the complainants loan accounts were transferred to opposite party No.2. After the closer of the loan account’s, complainants asked opposite party No.2 to return the documents of both the properties which were offered as collateral security . Documents placed on record shows opposite party No.2 bank after examining transferred loan accounts pertaining to the complainants from Barclays Bank came to know that the documents of only one property in Shop No.7, in ground floor building bearing MCH o. 5-9-279 situated at Mayurkushal complex, Block No.A, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad were taken as security for both the loans. Hence the M/s. Barclays Bank transmitted the original documents of above said property alone while transferring both the loan accounts to opposite party No.2. Inspite of these specific plea the complainants have not placed any records to show that both the properties referred by them were given as security for the loans availed from Barclays Bank. In fact even in evidence affidavit filed by the complainants there is no denial of version of opposite parties that the original documents of only one property of the complainants were taken as collateral security for 2 loans availed by the complainants from Barclays bank. Hence the stand taken by the opposite parties that since only one property were taken as security for both the loans availed they are not concerned with the documents of other property belong to the complainant has to be taken into consideration. Even then they interacted with the Barclays Bank during the said interaction Barclays bank informed that they are not in possession of documents of the other property of the complainants . Their upon opposite party No.2 in order to help the complainants asked the Barclays Bank to transfer it those documents to handover the same to the complainant. Exhibit B1 is the copy of letter addressed by complainants to Banking Ombudsman mentioning about availment of the 2 loans from Barclays Bank and non-cooperation and negligence on the part of Opposite party No.3 to return the documents. This letter is dated 6/7/2015 and it appears basing on exhibit B1 letter by the complainant to Banking Ombudsman’s office addressed a letter to the opposite party No.2 bank . There upon opposite party No.2 bank gave reply to Banking Ombudsman under Exhibit B2 stating that an investigation was initiated by the Barclays Bank to verify the records and it will take about 60 to 90 days time to trace of the documents. It is further informed by the opposite party No.2 to Banking Ombudsman that they are ready to extend required support to the complainant in tracing out the documents. A copy of this Exhibit B2 letter dt.4th August, 2015 was also sent to the complainants. The complainants instead of waiting for sometime have rushed to this Forum with the present complaint in the first week of September, 2015.
The complainants have not denied in the evidence affidavit filed on their be half that interaction was made by opposite party No.2 with Barclays Bank for tracing out the documents. That apart the complainants have not stated that they approached Barclays Bank to enquire about other properties documents . It is not in dispute that the complainants have not availed loan directly from opposite parities. None of the documents placed on record shows transmitting of original property documents of both the parties of complainants by the Barclays bank to opposite party No.2 along with the transfer of loan accounts . On the other hand it is verified from the material available on the record that Barclays Bank transmitted the original documents of only one property of the complainant to opposite party NO.2 bank while transferring complainants loan accounts. Hence if deficiency of service is on the part of Barclays bank but not opposite parties. The complainants ought to have made Barclays bank also as a party to the present complaint. Absolutely there is no deficiency of service o n the part of the opposite parties in handing over the property documents to the complainants. As rightly pleaded by the opposite parties the present complaint is not maintainable without adding the Barclays Bank as a party. Since the said bank in the deficiency of service by not transmitting the original documents of both the properties of the complainant to the opposite parties while transferring both the loan accounts of the complainants. Hence the point is answered against the complainant.
- Point No.2:- Since there is no deficiency of service by the opposite parties to the complainant they are not entitled for any of the amounts claimed in the present complaint.
- PointNO.3: In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to steno transcribed and typed by her pronounced
by us on this the 8th day of October, 2018.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
-NIL-
Exhibits marked on behalf of the complainant
Ex.A1- Auto acknowledgement for disposed
Ex.A2- Reply from Standard Chartered Bankdt.4/8/201155
Ex.A3- Notice to issue of original documents dtg.20.6.2015
Ex.A4- Agreement
Ex.A5 & 6- Letters from the Barclays Bank to the complainant.
Ex.A7- Receipt for documents
Ex.A8- Sale Deed
Ex.A9& 10- Receipts for documents.
Ex.A11- Receipt from Hotel Sai Ram Residency
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Opposite parties.
Ex.B1 - Letter to Dr.Krishna Mohan from the complainant.
Ex.B2 - Letter from Banking Ombudsman to the complainant dt.4/8/2015
Ex.B3 – Email from Barclays
MEMBER PRESIDENT
