BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No.645 of 2015

Date of Institution: 28.10.2015

  Date of Decision: 24.6.2016

Mrs. Vanita Bansal W/o Sh. Surinder Gupta R/o 44, Sehaj Enclave, Amritsar

Complainant

Versus

State Bank of India through its Chairman/Managing Director/Principal Officer service through its Branch Office at Gopal Nagar, Amritsar through its branch Manager

Opposite Party

Complaint under section 12 & 13  of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present:    For the Complainant        : Sh.Deepinder Singh,Advocate  

For the Opposite Party: Sh. Naresh Behal,Advocate

Coram

Sh.S.S.Panesar, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member

Order dictated by:

Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.

1.       Mrs.Vanita Bansal complainant has brought the instant complaint under section  12 &13 of  the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that the complainant took a housing loan from the opposite party by mortgaging his property with the opposite party. The complainant was having account with the opposite party bearing account No. 32386951404. Copy of the statement issued by the opposite party is annexed herewith.  The complainant is a consumer as provided under the Act and is competent to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum. The complainant while taking the said housing loan from the opposite party, opposite party issued the sanctioned letter dated 20.6.2012 wherein terms and conditions were settled and the floating rate of interest will be prevalent. The complainant repaid the whole loan amount due  towards him on 18.6.2015. The account was cleared and no due certificate was issued by the opposite party in favour of the complainant. Copy of the no due certificate is annexed. Opposite party despite clearance of all the dues, did not return the original title deed of the property mortgaged with them. The complainant time and again approached the opposite party for handing over the original title deed kept mortgaged with them as the loan  stand cleared and no due certificate has been issued. But the opposite party till the filing of the present complaint has not returned the original title deed despite clearance of the total loan amount on 18.6.2015. The complainant has sought for following reliefs against the opposite party as detailed below:-

a)       The opposite party be directed to return the original title deed mortgaged as security to the complainant.

b)      The opposite party be directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/ to the complainant.

c)       Opposite party be directed to pay adequate cost of the present litigation.

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version taking certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands ; that the present  complaint is not legally maintainable . As such the complainant is not entitled for any relief ; that present complainant is not a consumer of the opposite party bank; that no cause of action has accrued in favour of the complainant  and the complaint has been filed without  any cause of action. On merits, it is admitted to the extent  that complainant had obtained  the housing loan from the opposite party vide account No. 32386951404. However,  complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act. It is further stated that material facts have been concealed by the complainant and the distorted version is being presented before this Forum just to get undue relief The true facts are that as per the housing loan scheme anyone who avails loan for the purchase of plot under the housing loan scheme , has to construct the house over the said plot within the period of two years from the date of sanction of home loan. But in the instant case,  complainant availed housing loan but purchased the plot for commercial activities for earning profit by selling the same at a higher rate in the market to make heavy profits. The very purpose  of the housing loan scheme is to provide housing loan at a cheaper rate of interest just to provide residential house facility to the general public. The complainant sold the said plot in question in the market and earned huge profit  just by availing housing loan which is against the scheme of the bank. The complainant is liable to pay interest at the commercial rate  of interest instead of housing rate of interest  to the bank. The complainant has miserably failed to abide by the scheme of housing loan and now she is seeking relief against the bank for her own wrongs. Remaining facts stated in the complaint have also been specifically denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

3.       In his bid to prove the case, Sh. Deepinder Singh,Adv.counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-1, copy of account statement Ex.C-2, copy of bank certificate
Ex.C-3, copy of loan agreement Ex.C-4 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.

4.       To rebut the aforesaid evidence  Sh. Naresh Behl,Adv.counsel for the opposite party tendered affidavit of Sh. Vijay Pasricha Chief Manager Ex.OP1, copy of SBI Reality Scheme Ex.OP2, copy of undertaking signed by Sandeep Gupta Ex.OP3 and closed the evidence on behalf of the opposite party.

5.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file.. Counsel for the opposite party has also submitted written synopsis  of arguments. We have also gone through the written synopsis  of the arguments as well.

6.       Ld.counsel for the opposite party has vehemently contended that complainant had obtained housing loan from the opposite party vide account No. 323869514044 on 20.6.2012 for the purchase of plot for construction of residential house under the housing loan scheme. But, however, the complainant has suppressed the material facts from this Forum while filing the present complaint. As per housing loan scheme anyone who avails loan for the purchase of plot under the housing loan scheme has to construct the house over the said plot within the period of two years  from the date of sanction of home loan. But, however, in the instant case, complainant availed the housing loan , but did not construct the dwelling house over the said plot in question. The complainant had actually purchased the plot for commercial purpose for earning profit by selling the same at a higher rate in the market  . The very purpose  of the housing loan scheme of the  Government as provided by State Bank of India is to provide housing loan at a cheaper rate of interest just to provide residential house facility to the general public. Copy of reality scheme is Ex.OP2 and at Sr.No. 13 on third page  clearly mentions that the higher rate of interest shall be charged in case the borrower fails to construct the house over the plot purchased by the borrower availing the housing loan from the bank. The complainant has also signed undertaking which is Ex.OP3 wherein it is clearly mentioned that the  complainant will construct a house over the said plot of land within a period of two years from the date of availing of loan . But,however, complainant has failed to construct  the house over the said plot within stipulated period  of two years, as such , complainant was liable to pay interest  at the higher rate of interest instead of housing rate of interest  to the bank. The complainant has miserably failed to abide by the scheme of housing loan and now she is seeking relief against the bank for her own wrongs by presenting distorted version  and concealing the material facts.  Till date a sum of Rs.43396.96 uptil 20.3.2016 alongwith future interest is due & payable by the complainant in favour of the bank. The complainant settled the loan account in the branch without informing the loan cell  . When the officials of loan cell of State Bank of India pressurized the complainant to submit the bills of the material purchased and labour hired for the construction of the house, then complainant settled loan account on 18.6.2015 and thereby fraudulently obtained no due certificate from the branch . Detailed affidavit of Sh.Vijay Pasricha, Chief Manager RASMECCC, SBI which is Ex.OP1 which contains the detailed factsof this case. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party has vehemently contended that complaint may be dismissed with heavy cost in favour of the bank and the complainant may also be  directed to pay the outstanding amount and interest as calculated by the bank till date.

7.       However, from the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case , it becomes evident that loan obtained by the complainant has been settled inter-se parties on 18.6.2015. Not only that the complainant had paid due amount and the bank has also issued no due certificate in favour of the complainant which is Ex.C-3 on record. The contention of the bank that the complainant was under legal obligation to construct house within a period of two years of the sanction of the loan, but the complainant has failed to construct the house over the plot in dispute within the stipulated period and as such, the complainant was guilty of non-observance of the terms and conditions of the loan in dispute. It is the further case of the opposite party that the interest payable was higher in case of commercial activity than the rate of interest payable on housing loan facility granted by the Govt. But,however, the loan has been cleared by the complainant  with the opposite party without any objection to that effect on 18.6.2015. It is now too late for the opposite party to raise such type of objections . Even the written statement filed by the opposite party does not state how much amount was due or payable against the complainant in connection with the loan in dispute. At the fag end, during the course of arguments, a statement of account has been filed alongwith written synopsis, but the same cannot be taken into consideration because no pleadings to that effect have been made in the written version for the reasons best known to the opposite party. In such a situation, the objection taken by the opposite party that although the loan has been cleared and no due certificate has been issued  , yet the opposite party is not obliged  to release the documents of title, submitted by the complainant at the time of availing the loan sanctioned, does not appeal to  reason. Once ‘No Due Certificate’, has been issued by the loan branch, denial to return the title deeds i.e. mortgaged documents, amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. As such we allow the instant complaint with a direction to the opposite party to release the documents of title filed by the complainant for obtaining housing loan in dispute. Opposite party is afforded 30 days time to do the needful. Since the opposite party has been deficient in service, therefore, they are further directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 5000/- to the complainant alongwith cost of litigation to the tune of Rs. 2000/-. If no compliance is made within the stipulated period granted  vide instant order, the amount awarded shall carry interest @ 6% p.a from the date of passing of the order until full and final recovery. . Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 24.6.2016

/R/                                                                        ( S.S.Panesar )

President

                             ( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)           (Anoop Sharma)

                                                Member                          Member