Before  the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission [Central], 5th Floor                                                   ISBT Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi

                                      Complaint Case No.-121/26.11.2021

Soran Singh s/o Shri Ram Chander Singh

R/o Flat no. 26, Pocket Gh 1, Sector-28

Rohini, Delhi-110085                                                                                 …Complainant

                                                Versus

State Bank of India (through its Branch Manager)

Hauz Qazi Branch, Delhi-110006                                                               ...Opposite Party

                                                                                    Date of filing              26.11.2021

                                                                                    Date of Order:            05.08.2023

Coram: Shri Inder Jeet Singh, President

              Ms. Shahina, Member -Female

              Shri Vyas Muni Rai,    Member

                                                       ORDER [ex-parte]

Inder Jeet Singh , President

1. (Introduction to dispute of parties ) – The complainant/borrower is a consumer u/s 2(7) of the Consumer Protection, 2019. He alleges violation of the terms  and conditions of contract and also deficiency in services on the part of OP/Banker/Lander. The complainant had paid entire loan amount by agreed 180 EMIs with interest and despite that he was not issued No Due Certificate/NOC of payment of entire amount, his original documents of property were not returned nor the security cheques, apart from a sum of Rs. 34,370/- beyond EMI were deducted from his saving bank account without his information  and consent.  That is why the complaint was filed for such claims apart from to pay compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards mental agony etc., litigation expenses of Rs. 50,000/- and to restrain the OP from declaring the complainant’s housing loan account as NPA. The OP was served with the notice on complaint and matter was proceeded in the absence of OP and then OP was formally declared ex-parte on 24.11.2022.

2.1. (Case of complainant) – Complainant took home loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- in July 2006 from State Bank of Saurashtra, which stands merged into State Bank of India, Hauz Qazi, Brnach/the present OP. The loan was taken for purchasing property A-220, Indra Puri, Loni, Ghaziabad. The loan was sanctioned for a period of 15 years vide letter dated 18.07.2006 repayable in 180 EMIs of Rs. 10,640/- each (i.e. Rs. 10,140/- as EMI and Rs. 500/- pm towards SBI Life Insurance Premium) as per sanctioned letter. It was housing loan account no. 66005731195 (hereinafter referred Housing Loan Account). Thereafter, the EMI was increased to Rs. 10,942/- by OP on the reason of increasing rate of interest.

2.2. The complainant paid all EMIs regularly from his saving bank account with Bank of India, Chandni Chowk Branch that too without any break w.e.f. 06.09.2006 and a total of 178 EMIs were paid till June 2021. On 22.08.2019, OP deducted a sum of Rs. 34,370/- without any reason or prior notice from complainant’s saving bank account maintained with SBI, Regal Building, Parliament Street Branch, Delhi, in addition to regular EMI of Rs. 10,942/- through ECS. The complainant conveyed his grievances to the notice of OP,  then OP sent a letter  no. BR/2019-20 dated 23.10.2019 to complainant that there was pre-payment of Rs. 18,107.42p in respect of housing loan account in the name of complainant.

2.3. The complainant presented request letter dated 24.06.2021 to OP for final settlement and closing housing loan account with further request to OP to  return original paper of property, which were furnished as security and  also to issue No due certificate/NOC. The OP took the pretext that bank system is not maintaining complete record  [of 15 years] of complainant’s housing loan account at that time. Thence complainant sent email dated 19.07.2021 and 09.09.2021, as a reminder, but there was no response by OP.

             After June 2021, the EMIs [being deducted regularly in first week of each Month by SBI through ECS from complainant’s account with Bank of India] was stopped all of a sudden without notice, which surprised the complainant. But on 13.10.2021, complainant received a message from SBI that his housing loan account is irregular and it may be slip into NPA.  Immediately, the complainant sent letter dated 14.10.2021 to OP requesting for final settlement and close of housing loan account, while making it clear that EMIs were being deducted through ECS  but ECS was stopped by SBI without any notice to complainant. It was also reminder to OP of complainant's previous letter. The complainant also furnished them complete record/ booklet of 178 EMIs paid to SBI through ECS from his bank account of Bank of India.  The complainant also requested them for  information of the balance amount [since in the mentioned no amount was informed] in the housing loan account so that he may deposit it and to get released No Due Certificate and original papers of the property.

            Whereas OP's officer Mr. Okesh (home loan department, SBI, Hauz Qazi,  Branch) informed orally on telephone that  their system is showing balance  amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- approximately but complainant requested them  that there may be problem with their record and to check the record since there was merger of two Banks.  Since the complainant was already prepared record of paid EMIs, therefore, he provided/sent entire record of 15 years of paid EMIs from his account to Mr. Okesh, then he reacted that system is not showing complete record of his housing loan account.

2.4. The complainant out of worry and apprehension that his account may not slip into NPA, he deposited one EMI on 08.10.2021 and another EMI on 09.10.2021 into Housing Loan Account through NEFT from his saving bank account of Bank of India, consequently all 180 EMIs stand paid as per Arrangement letter- Housing Finance, it is apart from amount of Rs. 34,370/- deducted by OP two year back on 22.08.2019.

            Then, on 25.10.2021 the complainant sent legal notice dated 23.10.2021 to OP to provide NOC, original papers of property since all 180 EMIs were paid continuously for 15 years but the OP is still demanding amount of Rs. 4,89,448/-. The complainant suffered not only financial losses because of OP but also damages to his reputation and status in the society, apart from the complainant and his family suffered harassment, inconvenience, humiliation, mental torture & disturbance, pain & agony. The acts and conducts of OP amounts to deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and mal-practice. That is why the complaint.

2.5. The complaint is accompanied with photocopy of Arrangement letter- Housing Finance dated 18.07.2006, copy of passbook showing complete detail of payment of 180 EMIs, copy of passbook showing deduction of Rs. 34,370/-, letter dated 23.10.2019 of pre-payment amount, complainant’s letter dated 24.06.2021, email dated 19.07.2021, 09.09.2021, reminder dated 14.10.2021 in respect of settlement and closing of housing loan account, return of original document, OP's message that account may slip into NPA and copy of legal notice.

3. (Evidence)- The complainant was given opportunity to lead evidence. The complainant filed his exclusive affidavit of evidence, which is replica of complaint duly supported by documents filed with the complaint. The affidavit is also re-annexed  with the some of the documents filed with the affidavit. Then evidence was closed.

4. (Final hearing)- The complainant filed written arguments followed by oral submissions by Sh. Abhimanyu, Advocate for the complainant. The OP failed to join the proceedings from the stage of appearance till the final hearing, it remained ex-parte through-out.

5.1 (Findings)- The contentions on behalf of complainant are considered, keeping in view the material on record. The material detail of case along with documents has already been mentioned in paragraph no. 2 above of this Order. It does not need repeat.

5.2. The affidavit of evidence is in narration of event from the inception of taking the loan till the entire payment were paid by the complainant.  This narration of events and proof of documents remained unchallenged and un-rebutted on the part of OP for want of appearance as well as for want of any other contrary evidence.

            The  Arrangement letter – Housing finance depicts that loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- was sanctioned repayable in 180 EMIs of Rs. 10,140/- each against security of documents of property purchased. The paragraph 5a of Arrangement letter mentions of equitable mortgage by deposit of title document.s of property having value of Rs. 17 Lakhs.  The record of passbook (page 40-196) depicts payment of all EMS from first EMI to last 180th EMI, which confirms repayment of entire loan amount. The complainant has also proved letter dated 23.10.2019 (at page 22) that an amount of Rs. 18,107.42p was in respect of pre-payment of housing loan account. The complainant also proved that an amount of Rs. 34,370/- was deducted on 22.08.2019 (at page 21 of complaint & Ex CW1/3/page in affidavit of evidence), which is other than deposit of regular EMI.

5.3.  The complainant had also sent request letters from time to time to OP  for closing of his loan account  finally since entire loan amount has been repaid but there is no response by the OP. The complainant had also sent legal notice dated 23.10.2021 but there is also no response by the OP. To say an amount of Rs. 34,370/- was deducted from the account of complainant and the complainant has been  pursuing the OP  for the reason for such deduction but OP failed to respond or clarify the same. If the account of complainant is at the disposal of OP because of loan it does not mean the OP will act contrary to contract or without any justification, the OP will remain accountable for such deductions.  In Kalu Ram vs Sita Ram (1980 RLR Note 44) it was held that when a plaintiff,  before filing the suit, makes serious assertions in notice to the defendant, then defendant must not remain silent by ignoring to reply. If he does so, then adverse inference may be raised against him. It applies to situation in hand, that  OP failed to reply the legal notice. It was enough occasion for the OP to respond at that stage of process/ correspondence between the parties.

5.4. The complainant has also proved message dated 23.06.2021 at 11:04am and another message dated 13.10.2021 at 02:31pm (page no. 29 of the paper-book) wherein the complainant was advised that his housing loan account is irregular and to deposit the amount to avoid it into NPA. The complainant become alerted and apprehensive since he was following financial discipline strictly in repayment of EMI. Then he started exploring from the OP about  what amount is left payable, if any, he was advised firstly that the record is not complete being 15 years old matter and then an amount of Rs. 4,89,448/- was advised, that too orally. The complainant was constrained to write and see proper information as he was apprehensive and keeping entire record of payment of EMIs paid, he felt jolted and suffered inhumiliation, inconvenience, harassment, pain, agony etc. These aspects also remained unchallenged for want of contrary evidence.

5.5. The discussion and analysis carried in aforementioned sub-paragraphs reflects that complainant has paid 180 EMIs to OP and the record proved corroborates his plea vis-à-vis the OP has collected excess amount of Rs. 34,370/- which is other than EMIs. Moreover, on payment of entire amount the OP was also bound by contract to return the  original papers of property as equitable mortgage/security foreclosed on receipt of entire loan amount. OP is left no right to keep the record but an obligation towards complainant to return it, part from issue No due certificate/clearance/NOC that entire loan has been paid. But it has not been done by OP, thus  it amounts to deficiency of services as well as unfair trade practice on the part of OP. The complainant is held entitled for refund of Rs. 34,370/- deducted on 22.08.2019. The complainant is also held entitled for, No due certificate/clearance/NOC that all the EMIs have been paid in terms of arrangement letter- housing finance dated 18.07.2006.

5.6. The complainant claims interest at the rate of 18% pa on deducted amount of Rs.34,370/-. It was considering the nature of transaction that it was house loan on which the complainant was paying interest as detailed in paragraph 3 of arrangement letter. The interest at the rate of 9 %pa on amount of Rs. 34,370/- in favour of complainant and against OP will meet both ends. Since Bank has deducted the amount on 22.08.2019 without any reason and utilized the amount of complainant, therefore, interest of 9% pa will be payable we.f. 22.8.2019 [reliance is placed on Karmavati Vemeers P Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. AIR 2023 SC 98 , para 10]].

5.7. The complainant has paid the entire EMIs along with interest and on the eve of repayment of loan, the complainant has contractual and statutory right to have return of original papers of property kept as a security as well as No Due Certificate/clearance certificate. Therefore, the complainant is also held entitled for return of original papers of his property and No Due Certificate/clearance certificate.

5.8. The complainant seeks compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- and cost of Rs. 50,000/-. The circumstances are speaking voluminous that the complainant has maintained financial discipline that he had paid all 180 EMIs  and each EMI  was paid within time and the passbook record proved clearly is showing that there is punctuality maintained in repayment of EMI, but on the other side, the OP took different stand at different intervals either the complete record of 15 years is not available or there is balance amount of Rs. 4,89,448/- appx. or a incomplete/vague message was communicated that there is irregularity in the Housing loan account. If record was available for message, then why not for other information? The complainant was pursuing the OP regularly but OP is very passive to response. It was complainant who approached OP to disclose the amount. This clearly establish the trauma of inconvenience, mental agony, harassment etc. faced by the complainant, even he was compelled to write correspondence and finally legal notice, which were not bothered by OP. The complainant is to be compensated there-for. So, compensation of Rs. 20,000/- in favour of complainant and against OP would justify the situation and cost of Rs. 10,000/- are also awarded in favour of complainant and against the OP.

5.9. Since the complainant has paid all EMIs and amounts but also collected excess amount, therefore,  there is no reason for the OP to make housing loan account no. 66005731195 as NPA.

6.1 Accordingly, the complaint is allowed in favour of complainant and against the OP to refund/ return amount of Rs.34,370/- along-with simple interest @ 9%pa from the date of deduction of 22.08.2019 till realization of amount; apart from to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- & costs of Rs.10,000/- to complainant. 

            OP is also directed to return/pay the amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. In case amount is not paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of order, the interest will be 10% per annum on amount of Rs.34,370/-.

6.2   The OP is also directed (a) to return of original papers of property and (b) issue No Due Certificate/clearance certificate to the Complainant that entire loan has been paid within 30 days period from the date of receipt of this Order.

6.3.  Since the complainant has paid all EMIs and repaid the entire house loan account, there is no reason for the OP to make housing loan account no. 66005731195 as NPA.

6.4. In case the OP does not comply the order on receipt of this Order, the complainant will be at liberty to get the order executed/enforced in terms of section 71 of the Act 2019 and/or penalty for non-compliance u/s 72 of the Act 2019.

7.  Announced on this  5th August 2023 [श्र!वण 14, साका 1945].

8.  Copy of this Order be sent/provided forthwith to the parties free of cost as per rules for compliances.

[Vyas Muni Rai]                                 [Shahina]                                 [Inder Jeet Singh]

        Member                                   Member (Female)                              President