Karnataka

Chamrajnagar

CC/188/2010

T.P.Mohammad Arees - Complainant(s)

Versus

Syndicate Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.J.S.

23 Nov 2010

ORDER

ORDER

1. The complainant has filed the complaint against O.P. for deficiency of service.

 

1. The complainant has stated that he is an account holder with the O.P. and borrowed Rs.1,87,000/-  on 31.01.2008 for purchasing a vacant site.

 

1. The complainant has repaid the loan periodically and on 24.07.2010 the  complainant paid balance amount to the O.P. with upto date interest as calculated by O.P.

 

1. The complainant gave requisition after repayment of loan to return the original documents  given by him for borrowing loan. The O.P. did not return the documents  and on 24.07.2010 the complainant requested the O.P. again to return the documents, but  on 28.07.2010 the O.P. has endorsed on the application by stating that  interest difference amount  has to be paid  for non-construction of the house. The complainant enquired    about O.P. with regard to  return of documents but O.P. did not gave the proper reply.

 

1. The complainant  has borrowed loan for the purpose of purchasing vacant site not for construction of house. The original documents  pledged by the complainant are necessary  and non return of the same amounts to deficiency of service by O.P.

 

1. The O.P. has admitted that the complainant is an account holder and borrowed loan as stated  by them  but  has denied that it was  borrowed for the purpose of purchasing  of vacant site only. it has also denied that the complainant has paid loan amount regularly.

 

1. The O.P. has admitted that it has endorsed  only on the application as stated by the complainant and penalty  has been levied for non-construction of house and  173 days delay has to be paid by the complainant. The O.P. has not returned the documents to the complainant due to non-payment of delayed interest amount to the O.Ps. for non construction of house by the complainant.

 

1. The complainant has not disputed the terms and conditions  of loan agreement. The complainant is bound by the terms and conditions existing and modifyied from time to time as  per agreement executed by him. The complainant after purchase of site  has to construct house within two years  as per housing loan scheme otherwise  the complainant is liable to pay penalty. The complainant has to pay additional interest of Rs.5,785/- from 01.02.2010 to 25.07.2010 for Rs.1,74,380/-.

 

1. The following points arises from the  above disputed facts.
   1. Whether the complainant has shown the deficiency of service by the O.P.?
   2. What order the parties are entitled?

 

REASONS

1. POINT NO.1:- The admitted facts are that the complainant is an account holder of O.P.bank. The complainant has borrowed loan of Rs.1,87,000/- on 31.01.2008 and has repaid the same within the stipulated time.

 

1. The disputed fact  is that the complainant says that he borrowed loan only for the purpose of acquiring site, while the O.P. says that the loan was advanced under housing loan scheme for the purpose of acquiring site with a condition  that the house has to be constructed on the acquired site within two years from the date of acquisition.

 

1. The complainant has stated earlier  the loan amount  with interest has been repaid and the bank has not returned the documents by saying that due to non-construction of house within period stipulated and the complainant is liable to pay penal interest for 173 days and only after payment of the same the original documents will be returned.

 

1.  The entire question in this case  inorder to find out  whether there is deficiency of service or not by O.P. depends on,  whether the loan has been advanced  for the purpose of acquiring site or loan  has been advanced for acquiring site with condition that  the house has to be constructed within two years from the date of acquisition.

 

1. Both the parties have relied upon the admitted documents  produced in the case in respect of their contentions.

 

1. The complainant has given loan application for loan in order to purchase the site after giving the same it has been processed in column no.14, heading “ Purpose of Housing loan” and in front of it has been printed “ To acquire site construction of house” (margin of 25%)  The bank has ticked  to the sentence  acquire site and has strike  the sentence  construction of house, after that it is again in the heading made  right mark. Both the parties. Both the parties relay upon this to show that it is for the acquiring site only. While the  bank says  it is  loan was acquiring site as well as construction of house. It becomes clear from this document that  the loan was advanced for acquisition of site only. The bank would not have strike out the words construction of house. In view of this the process note does not help the  O.P.

 

1. The housing loan agreement  entered into by the parties shows that column No.5 is blank. The column no.5 reads as follows.

“ The borrower  undertakes to utilize his own  contribution of Rs……(Rs………) the acquition of plot and /or for construction of house/flat/additions/repairs thereto and that he would provide satisfactory  proof/evidence to the satisfaction of the bank.

 

1.  If the above is considered it becomes clear that if the loan was disbursed for acquiring  site with a condition to construct house on that site, the blank  would have  filled  up the appropriate words and non-filling of the blank would show the intention of the parties at the time of borrowing loan only for acquiring the  site and not for constructing house  after acquiring site as stated by O.P.

 

1. It becomes clear from the above coupled with affidavits filed by the parties the loan was given for the purpose of acquiring site only.

 

1. The learned counsel appearing for O.P.  submitted that the loan has been granted under housing scheme. The agreement produced  does not disclose the same in order  to show the same nor no material has been placed before the Forum to show that loan has been  advanced by the bank as stated by the  learned counsel for O.P.

 

1. The learned counsel for O.P. next has submitted that the loan agreement discloses that the borrower is bound by  terms and conditions of loan agreement  and also the circulars that may be issued from time to time after the loan agreement has come into existence in respect of interest.

 

1. He has drawn the attention of the Forum, clause-8 of the loan agreement. The condition of the loan agreement does not help as it is not shown that loan has been advanced under housing loan scheme.

 

1. The O.P. has also relied upon the documents produced in the case  to show that even if the loan was  granted for acquisition of site only even then the complainant is liable to pay  the interest. They have produced zerox copy in the heading “SYNDNIVAS”.

 

1.  Clause-1 of Syndinivas  reads as follows “ If the loan is given for purchase of plot only then ROI to be charged is PCR+1% from the date of completion of two years period till  completion of construction of house or closure of the loan ac.

 

1. It is admitted fact in the present case the loan has been cleared even before the due date stipulated by the bank to clear the loan and therefore the complainant himself not liable to pay any penal interest.

 

1.  The loan agreement produced in the case para-3 reads as follows, 

“The borrower, hereby agrees and undertakes that the said loan shall be governed by the terms herein contained as well as  those embodied in the security documents/Housing loan scheme of the bank as altered/modified  time to time except in so far as the security documents may expressly or by necessary implication be modified by  these presents”.

 

The bank has not struck  the proper sentence  which is required for the present loan and therefore the bank cannot take assistance of the above  in order to  award penal interest.

 

1. It becomes clear from the above that the loan was granted only for acquisition of site and O.P. has failed to establish the loan has been advanced under housing loan scheme and even if the loan is granted for acquiring of  site only the complainant is liable to pay the interest as stated by it.  If this is considered it can be said that there is deficiency of service by O.P.

 

1. In view of the above the following

ORDER

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The O.P. shall return the documents to the complainant and O.P. shall pay cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.