DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.662/2007
1. Sh. Y.N. Bhardwaj
2. Mrs. Uma Bhardwaj
W/o Sh. Y.N. Bhardwaj
Both R/o
J-1894, Chittaranjan Park
New Delhi-110019 ….Complainants
Versus
Standard Chartered Bank
Allahabad Bank Building
17- Sansad Marg
New Delhi-110001 ……Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 31.05.07 Date of Order : 11.02.16
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
The case of the Complainants, in nutshell, is that the complainants were sanctioned a Home Loan by Standard Chartered Bank (hereinafter to be referred as OP) in May 2002 of Rs. 7 Lacs repayable in seven years (according to OP in 96 months) in respect of a flat in premises bearing no. J-1984, Chittranjan Park, New Delhi – 19. The flat was mortgaged by depositing the sale deed dated 24.5.2002 duly registered in favour of the complainants. Complainants had initially given Post Dated cheques towards Equated Monthly Instalments (EMIs) for repayment of the loan. The complainants opened a Home Saver Account bearing no. 522-0-533328-8 with the OP; that the complainants did not commit a single default in the payments of the EMIs and, on the other hand, they in addition to the EMIs made accelerated payments by remitting substantial amounts towards repayment of the said loan; that there always remained several lacs of rupees to the credit of the complainants in the said Home Saver Account but, however, on making enquiry, the complainants were told by the OP Bank that if the loan was re-paid before the expiry certain period, then such pre-payment will attract penalty; that it was for this reason that the complainants did not pre-pay the loan although they were capable to do so; that complainant-1 withdrew Rs. 1 Lac from the said account on 25.1.07 and again the same amount on Feb. 3, 2007; that upon receiving the statement dated 12.2.2007 from OP Bank it was noticed that Rs. 100/- had been charged to the said account twice; that the complainant-1 went to the branch of the OP at Greater Kailash, New Delhi where it was informed that the above account is a current account and that was the reason for charging Rs. 100/- per transaction of withdrawal of Rs. 1 Lac; that the officials of the OP Bank did not tell the complainant-1 as to how the said Home Saver Account had been converted into a current account; that Complainant-1 had withdrawn Rs. 1 Lac and above in the past but there was no charge. It is stated that Complainant No.1 was informed on 22.2.2007 at about 2.30 p.m. on telephone that the entire amount of loan had been repaid for which reason the account had been converted into current account and that the withdrawal of any amount of less than Rs. 1 Lac would not attract the charge of Rs. 100/-. The Complainant-1 asked for the following information:
- That the bank has so far not sent any intimation to him as to when the loan got fully repaid. Had the bank sent such information he would not have withdrawn Rs. 1 Lac,
- What is the reason of the bank in not informing him,
- What is the reason/motive of the bank in not returning the original Title Deed of the property to him,
- What steps vis-a-vis the bank he should take to retrieve the original Title Deed of his property,
- That had he not withdrawn Rs. 1 Lac and not noticed the charge of Rs. 100/the bank would have continued to maintain silence and he would not have known his status and legal right to recover the original Title Deed of his property, which is a grave offence against him as the bank has deliberately and intentionally concealed the said fact from him pertaining to a precious property,
- The fact of full repayment of the loan has come to be known to him through a very chancy incident and not by a conscious step by the bank with whom the original Title Deed of his property were entrusted. This act on the part of the bank amounts to criminal breach of trust as defined under the Indian Penal Code as the bank has no valid and tenable reason to old on to the said Title Deed after its charge by way of mortgage had been satisfied.
The complaint further narrates that according to the OP Bank, the loan had stood repaid in Sept 2006 but the OP Bank did not inform them about this and OP Bank also did not take any steps to return the sale deed dated 24.5.2002 along with other documents for its unlawful financial gain and benefit in business transactions and had the OP Bank informed the complainants in Sept. 2006, then the OP Bank was obliged to pay interest on the said amount as the said account would have been converted into a Savings Account by the complainants. The OP Bank did not respond to their grievances despite several e-mail/letters exchanged between them. Having not been satisfied with the response of the OP, the Complainants have filed the present complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for deficiency of service with the following reliefs:-
- Direct the OP Bank to return the Original Sale Deed dated May, 2002 alongwith other Original Documents as were executed by the applicants in consideration of having availed the said loan of Rs.7 lacs.
- Direct the OP to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the Complainant towards compensation and damages for negligence and deficiency in service.
- Direct the OP interest @ 18% to the Complainant from the date of full payment/adjustment of the loan till the date of filing the instant complaint and pendentelite interest till date of payment.
- Direct the OP to pay to the Complainant the cost of the litigation.
The OP has contested the claim of the Complainants by filing written statement on the grounds that the Complainants had initially given post dated cheques for repayment of the loan but subsequently they opted for standing instructions mode of payment. Both the parties entered into Home Loan Agreement and Supplement to Loan Agreement on 18.05.02. As per sanction letter and agreement of loan account the above Home Saver Account was opened. It is stated that the complainants had repaid their Home Loan Account in September 2006, which is well within the period of 5 years as the loan was availed in May 2002 and thus it had attracted pre-payment penalty charges as per terms and conditions but, however, the same was not levied in the complainants account as a service gesture. It is stated that the Home Saver Account falls under Current Account category; that after closure of the Home Loan Account the complainants were required to contact the Branch Office of the OP Bank in order to retrieve their original documents which they had executed at the time of availing the loan and for closure of the Home Saver Account and also that the original Title Deeds are never sent through courier or post. Complainants were duly informed regarding his loan account through statement of account which provide details of transaction and the interest amount recovered from the respective EMIs and the Complainants were required to send written request for closure of the Home Saver Account and request for returning of original documents but the Complainants never acted upon the advice and preferred to make this complaint before the Forum. The OP has further stated that the Complainants have failed to show any deficiency in service on the part of OP. OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Complainants have filed rejoinder to the written statement of OP.
Complainant No. 1 has filed his affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Ms. Nidhi Das, Constituted Attorney has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the complainant-1 and Counsel for OP and have also gone through the record.
As recorded in the order-sheet dated 22.12.2008, the counsel for OP had handed over the title deeds to the complaint no. 1 who accepted the same on his behalf and also on the behalf of complainant no. 2, his wife.
On 21.8.15 the complainant-1 filed the original Bank’s Code of Commitment to customers alongwith it photostat copy. The counsel for the OP did not dispute the authenticity of the said document. However, the counsel for OP stated that there was no charge of the interest on the Title Deed before the sub-registrar concerned. Therefore, the only question which remains to be decided is, whether the complainants are entitled to award of any compensation and, if so, to what amount?
Admittedly, the Complainant had taken a loan of Rs.7 lacs from OP which was to be repaid in 96 months. They repaid the loan amount in September, 2006 i.e. within period of 5 years. Though there had been contributory negligence on the part of Complainants to remain vigilant on complete repayment of loan amount till they came to know about conversion of Home Saver Account into current account on 22.02.07 in telephonic conversation and equally on the part of OP in not informing the Complainant about complete repayment of loan amount immediately after September, 2006 but having gone through the Banking Code of Commitment to customers placed on the record we find that in terms of para 11.1(l), the following condition is required to be honoured by the OP:
“we will compensate you for any delay in return of securities/documents/title deeds to mortgaged property beyond 15 days of the repayment of all dues agreed to or contracted”
In view of the above condition which is voluntarily code, we hold that the OP failed to honour its own commitment in not returning the original sale deed to the Complainant within15 days of repayment of loan in September, 2006 on the flimsy ground that it were the complainants who had to apply for return of the sale deed to them. At this stage, we are at pain to note that the management of the OP Bank has set for itself a noble code of commitment to its customers in returning the original sale deed/titled documents but the dealing branch of the bank had demonstrated utter disregard to the Code of Conduct.
We, therefore, partly allow the complaint and direct the OP to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) in lumpsum towards mental agony and harassment undergone by the Complainants including cost of litigation within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the OP shall become liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum for delay beyond period of 30 days from the date of this order till realization.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
Announced on 11.2.2016.
Case No. 662/2007
11.02.2016
Present – None.
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is partly allowed. OP is directed to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) in lumpsum towards mental agony and harassment undergone by the Complainants including cost of litigation within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the OP shall become liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum for delay beyond period of 30 days from the date of this order till realization. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
