(Delivered on 06/06/2024)

PER SHRI A. Z. KHWAJA, HON’BLE JUDICIAL  MEMBER.

1. Complainant – Mr. Sadiq Qureshi has preferred the present complaint under the provisions of  the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against  the  Opponent- Corporation Bank  for having committed Deficiency  in Service as well as indulging  in Unfair Trade Practice as defined  in  Consumer Protection Act, 2019. .

2. Short facts leading to the filing of the  present  complaint  may be stated as under:-

            Complainant –-Mr. Sadiq Qureshi was working as Assistant  Manager with the opponent – Corporation Bank at Nagpur.  Complainant- Mr. Sadiq Qureshi has claimed  that  he had taken a  staff housing  loan in the year 1991 of an amount of Rs. 2,35,000/- for booking  the  flat bearing flat No. 6 at All Way  Housing Scheme at Bhopal. The complainant has also submitted all the necessary documents and had also paid necessary charges. The complainant had taken   a loan in his capacity as Assistant Manager as he was eligible for loan.  The opponent – Corporation Bank had also permitted   the  substitution  of the security on 26/11/1997 as per scheme wherein  inoperative  S.B. Account  has to be  run for   maximum  period of six months. The complainant  has contended that  though  he had submitted  all the documents  and he was waiting  for the  housing  loan, the opponent – Corporation Bank did not  sanction  the housing  loan and thereafter  the builder from whom the  flat  was  to be purchased  cancelled  the booking  on 23/11/2000 for want of  consideration  in time and refunded the amount.  The complainant  has alleged that his booking of the flat No. 6 was cancelled  solely  due to opponent – Corporation Bank not sanctioning   the loan due to  some wrong credit of installment  which  was not due to  any fault  on the part of  complainant- Sadiq Qureshi. The complainant  has  alleged that  as per letter dated 25/06/2002  the opponent  Assistant  General Manager had taken  harsh  decision  of   recalling  the loan and  charging  Commercial rate  at 12.25% p.a. and also not sanctioned  fresh loan or  festival advance to the complainant. The complainant-  was also given a threat  on 21/07/2004 that in case  earlier  loan  liability  is also  not  cleared    he will face   disciplinary  action.

3.         The complainant  has contended that  he came to  know that  the  Bhopal Corporation Bank had opened  third  illegal account  SHL/02/980004 without any  document  and it was  bogus  account and had also  threatened  the complainant  to take disciplinary action  and punished  the complainant  by stopping  three increments. The complainant  had contended that  he was thereafter compelled    to file  Writ Petition bearing Writ Petition No.988/2006  before the Hon’ble High Court, Nagpur Bench wherein  other  grievance  were also taken. The complainant has contended that he won  the case in respect  of  relief relating  to  stoppage of three increments.  The  opponent –Corporation Bank approached  the Hon’ble Supreme Court but in Contempt  Petition  No. 193/2011 unconditional  apology  was accepted.  The complainant has contended that thereafter, on three occasions he applied for housing loan on three different properties but the loan was not sanctioned and letter was issued not to give housing loan in staff category. The complainant has contended that as per letter dated 06/12/2019 he was asked for an amount of Rs. 4,85,000/- along with  interest  at Commercial rate  and his  amount was blocked for more than 22 years.  The complainant has therefore, claimed interest on the amount at the rate of 16.25 %. The complainant  was entitled  for an amount of Rs. 4,65,010/- along with  interest  at the rate of 16.25% coming to Rs. 16,37,474/-. The complainant has also claimed an amount towards purchase of stamp for sale deed and losses on account of agreement of house and on other heads. Further, the complainant has also contended that  though the opponent – Corporation Bank had not granted  sanction loan but  the opponent – Corporation Bank had also failed  to return all the  original  documents  and therefore  the complainant  was also not in a position  to take  housing loan   from any other banking  agencies.  The complainant  had therefore,  claimed a  total sum of Rs. 24,93,824/- as well as prayed that  the  opponent – Corporation  Bank  be directed  to sanction  new housing loan and  also  directed  the  opponent –Corporation Bank to return  all the original  documents  which  were submitted for  housing  loan.

4.         The opponent – Corporation Bank has appeared and resisted the complaint by filing detailed written version on record.  The opponent – Corporation Bank has denied all the contentions made in the complaint.  At the outset the opponent – Corporation Bank has taken a preliminary objection that the complaint filed by the complainant was barred by limitation as per Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act.  The complainant   has not mentioned on which date the cause of action has arisen for filing the complaint.  The complainant has mentioned that the builder from Bhopal where the flat was booked had cancelled the booking on 23/11/2000. The opponent – Corporation Bank has contended that in fact the cause of action had arisen on 23/11/2000 when the booking was cancelled.  The opponent – Corporation Bank has contended that the complainant had filed the complaint within the period of two years from the date of cause of action but the complaint has been filed in the year 2020. The  complainant  has also claimed  sum of Rs. 4,65,010/- but has sent  baseless letters  to  extend the period of limitation without  filing  any application.  The opponent – Corporation Bank has  further  contended that  though  the  complainant has  claimed  an amount of Rs. 4,65,010/-, the complainant himself  has withdrawn   the amount on 02/12/2000 and 30/12/2000 though  was not  permitted to do so as it was  the amount  towards security  against  the housing  loan. The opponent – Corporation  Bank has further  contended that  all the averments  in the complaint are  connected with the Bhopal branch  of the Corporation Bank which is a separate branch  office and so the Head Office of Corporation  Bank was a necessary  party but the same has not been  added as a party. The complainant had himself failed to comply with the transaction of purchase of property within the period of six months and also for substitution of security. The opponent- Corporation Bank had also issued a pay order for Rs. 4,64,000/- by  the Bhopal Branch.  The opponent has categorically denied the rest of the contentions.  The opponent has denied that on 21/07/2004 the Disciplinary Authority had given any threat to the complainant to face disciplinary action. The opponent has contended that the complainant was allowed to shift the pension account to any other branch but complainant never opted for the same.  The opponent has denied the rest of the contentions made by the complainant. For the forgoing reasons the opponent has contended that the complaint filed by the complainant was not maintainable in law and deserves to be dismissed with cost.

5.         Complainant thereafter led his evidence by filing the evidence affidavit. The complainant has also placed reliance upon voluminous documents to support its case.  Similarly, the opponent- Corporation Bank has also led evidence by way of affidavit. Both the complainant as well as opponent – Corporation Bank has also filed  notes of arguments.

6.         We have heard   the Complainant - Mr. Sadiq Qureshi who has appeared  in person  as well as Mr. Niyogi, learned advocate  appearing for the  opponent – Corporation Bank, Nagpur. We have also gone through the record. On the basis of the facts stated above ,the following points arises  for our determination  with our findings  recorded against the same.

REASONS FOR FINDINGS

7.         It is not in dispute that the complainant –Sadiq Qureshi was an employee of the Corporation Bank and subsequently, had come to be promoted as Assistant Manager. It is also not in dispute that  by virtue  of his promotion  he had submitted  a proposal  for taking housing  loan for which  he was  eligible  in respect of flat No. 6, Allway Flat Scheme, at Bhopal.  It is not in dispute that  the complainant  has sought permission  to  sell  his flat  No. 707 of Utkarsh Nirman at Sadar, Nagpur and had also  applied  for  substitution  of security  for seeking  the loan in respect of flat No. 6, Allway Flat Scheme, at Bhopal but we find that  the opponent  namely Corporation Bank  has denied  the rest of the contentions. Now, in order to support his contentions, the complainant  has placed reliance  upon  voluminous  documents  but we feel it  proper  to deal with  only  the relevant  documents  which are filed with the complaint  initially. The complainant  has  come with the specific case that the  opponent – Corporation Bank has  permitted substitution  of security  on 26/11/1997 as per scheme  and amount of Rs. 4,65,010/- was kept  wrongly  in inoperative  S.B. Account No. 2/000065.  The complainant  has contended that  he had booked  the flat bearing flat No. 6 at Allway Housing  Scheme  at Bhopal and had also  submitted  the necessary  documents  but the  Corporation  Bank had not  sanctioned  the loan within the necessary  period  and therefore  the amount was not transferred and  consequently,  the  booking of the flat  No. 6 at Bhopal came to be  cancelled for which  the  Corporation Bank alone was responsible.  In order to support this contention, the complainant  has placed  on record  one copy  of letter dated 23/11/2000 addressed by  M/s Allway Housing. By this letter Allway Housing  had called  upon  the complainant  to execute  the sale deed by  paying  the  amount  or else  the booking  will be cancelled and  the amount will be refunded back.  It is not in dispute at all that the loan amount was not disbursed in time and so the booking of flat No.6 in All Way Housing Scheme came to be cancelled.  The complainant has contended that the amount of Rs. 4,65,010/- which was  not sanctioned  earlier  was later transferred  in inoperative  Saving Bank  account bearing account No. 2/000065. Although the complainant has made reference to various accounts which were opened in his name in Corporation Bank, we are mainly concerned only with the transaction which had taken place with respect to this inoperative account bearing account No. 2/000065. Admittedly, there were two accounts in the name of the complainant – Mr. Sadiq Qureshi namely SHL/2/980004 and SSHL/2/980003. It is also  clear from the record  and papers  filed by the complainant  himself  that  both the aforesaid  accounts  of  Mr. Sadiq Qureshi who was  himself  an employee  were classified as NPA. Copy of this letter dated 06/09/2012 is also filed by the complainant at page No. 57 of the compilation.  Complainant has himself placed on record one copy of No Objection Certificate, it is dated 21/09/2013 and same shows that both the said accounts bearing Nos. SHL/2/980004 and SSHL/2/980003 came to be closed on 20/09/2013. The opponent – Corporation Bank has also not seriously  disputed this aspect and therefore  we  are concerned with  only  the third  inoperative  account which is subject  matter of the present  complaint.  The complainant has contended that  earlier  his booking  of flat No. 6 at  Bhopal came to be cancelled  as the housing loan applied by the complainant was not granted and thereafter the complainant  has  also  not received  the amount of Rs. 4,65,010/-. As per  the  case of the complainant  loan amount   had come to be  blocked  for the period  of 22 years  and no interest  has been paid   except  a small amount  of Rs. 11,625.25 without giving any reasons.  It is argued by the complainant- Mr. Sadiq  Qureshi that though he was an employee of the opponent – Corporation Bank he was not sanctioned any loan and further he was asked to pay compound interest and penalty was also imposed by way of disciplinary proceedings.  The complainant has contended that he was entitled for interest on the amount of Rs. 4,65,010/- at the rate of 16.25% for the period from  17/07/1998 to 29/02/2020. In order to support this contention the complainant has drawn our attention to the various documents including one letter written by the complainant to the opponent – Corporation Bank on 06/12/2019. Copy of this letter is on record  at page No. 86 of the compilation.  It is submitted by the complainant  that  the complainant was neither  paid an amount of Rs. 4,65,010/- nor  was paid  any interest  on the same and  the same amounted to deficiency  in service  and unfair trade practice on the part of the opponent – Corporation Bank.  The complainant has placed on record  copies of several  letters which were addressed to the complainant- Mr. Sadiq Qureshi wherein  stand was  taken that  the interest could be paid only after receiving  instruction  from the  Zonal Office. Bare perusal of the correspondence would go to show that no interest was paid to the complainant. We have heard Mr. Niyogi, learned advocate for the opponent– Corporation Bank on this aspect.  Mr. Niyogi, learned advocate for the opponent has strongly rebutted this contention that the amount of Rs. 4,65,010/- was never paid to the complainant.  On the contrary  the learned advocate for the  opponent- Bank  has submitted that  the amount  of Rs. 4,65,010/- was  not  only deposited  in the account  of  complainant- Mr. Sadiq Qureshi but subsequently,  the said amount also came to be paid  to the Builder of Allway Housing  as per  pay order issued on 28/07/1998. The learned advocate  for the opponent – Corporation Bank has also drawn our attention  to the extract of statement  of account and  the same shows that  the  amount of Rs. 4,64,000/- was paid  to the Builder at  Bhopal. Further  it is submitted by the learned advocate for the  opponent  that  the  amount of Rs. 4,59,000/- came to be returned  by the builder and copy of this extract is at exhibit  No. 150 of the  compilation. It seems from the papers that  since  the booking of the flat had come to be cancelled, the builder of Allway Housing  returned  the amount on 01/12/2000. Further it is submitted by Mr. Niyogi,  learned advocate for the opponent – Corporation  Bank  that thereafter the said amount also came to be transferred  to the  inoperative account  bearing  account No. 2/000065 standing  in the name of  Mr. Sadiq Qureshi. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the opponent that though the amount was paid to the complainant, the complainant himself did not execute the sale deed and there was no deficiency on the part of the opponent. It is also contended by the learned advocate for the opponent  that  the amount was kept  in  the inoperative  account  in the name of  Mr. Sadiq Qureshi only by way of security but now since the complainant  had   withdrawn the said  amount there was  no security  left in the bank in respect of the loan. The learned advocate for the opponent  has drawn  our attention  to one more extract of account in the name of complainant- Sadiq Qureshi  to show that the amount of Rs. 4,09,000/- was  standing in the name of the complainant.  Further  it is  pointed  out  on behalf of the  opponent that the amount of Rs. 50,000/- was also paid  by the complainant  by way of  cheque  to one  Mohamad Yaqub on 30/12/2000 and there is entry also  in the  extract  regarding  the said payment.  On the basis of aforesaid documents, it is submitted on behalf of the opponent that there was no question of deficiency in service and the opponent -Bank had not stopped the payment of the complainant.  On the contrary  it is submitted by the learned advocate for the opponent that  the complainant  himself  had availed  loans and had not  made  regular payment  and therefore  disciplinary  proceeding had  came to be  started.  We have heard complainant – Mr. Sadiq Qureshi on this aspect and he has categorically denied all the aforesaid contentions. He has categorically denied that the amount of Rs. 4,65,010/- was transferred  in his account No. 2/000065. Complainant- Mr. Sadiq Qureshi denied that any amount much less Rs. 4,65,010/- was received  by the  complainant  or that he had paid any amount of Rs. 50,000/- to Mohamad Yaqub. On the  contrary  the complainant  has submitted before  us that  the said account  No. 2/65 was actually inoperative  account and the complainant  had no power  or authority  to withdraw the said amount.  In order to support this contention, the complainant has again drawn our attention to various documents.  Firstly it is contended that  the amount  of Rs. 4,65,010/- never  came  him   nor it was  handed over  to the builder  and it was  actually inoperative account.  We do find much force  in this contention  more particularly because  the opponent – Corporation Bank has itself  submitted that  the said amount  of Rs. 4,65,010/- was transferred  to  inoperative  account  in the  name of  the Sadiq Qureshi.  Merely because  the said  inoperative  account bearing No. 2/65 was standing  in the name of complainant – Mr. Sadiq Qureshi, no inference  can be drawn that  the said amount  was received  by him  particularly  when it was  inoperative  account  and could not  be  operated.  The complainant – Mr. Sadiq Qureshi has also submitted that the said amount was not even transferred in the saving   account.

8.         If we turn to the  stand of the opponent – Corporation  Bank, we find  that  though  this stand  is taken  no  other  documents  have been placed  on record   except  one extract of account statement so as to  show  that the  amount of Rs. 4,65,010/- was transferred  or was received by the complainant  in his saving account. Rather it is stand of the opponent – Corporation Bank that the amount was kept as security for the loan taken by the complainant.  As such  without  going  to other  documents filed by the complainant inference  can be  drawn  that the complainant  had not received  the said  amount of Rs. 4,65,010/-. On the other hand, the complainant  - Mr. Sadiq Qureshi has contended that several letters were issued  to him by the Head Office at Menglore asking him to clear the housing loan  liability  and also to pay commercial  rate of interest  on amount though  he was an employee  of the Corporation Bank and was not a normal  borrower of the bank. The complainant has submitted  that he had applied for  the loan as per  scheme  floated by the  bank for its employees  but no loan was sanctioned to him and on the contrary  penalties were  also imposed  upon him and  disciplinary  proceedings  were   also started.

9.         It is submitted by the complainant that since the disciplinary proceedings were started, he was required to file Writ Petition bearing Writ Petition No. 988/2006. The complainant has submitted  that  the relief  was granted to him by judgment  dated 09/08/2012 by the Hon’ble   Bombay High Court, Bench at Nagpur, copy of which  is placed on record.  We have gone though the judgment dated 09/08/2012 delivered by the Hon’ble  Bombay High  Court, Bench at Nagpur which  shows that the present  complainant  had filed Writ Petition  against the order  by which  punishment  was awarded  and  basic pay  of  complainant   was reduced  by one   stage  for the period  of  three years.  The complainant submitted before us that the Hon’ble High Court came to the conclusion that there was no misconduct on his part but we feel that this issue is not relevant for our purpose.  The complainant  has relied  on this judgment to show that the opponent – Bank had  adopted  revengeful attitude  towards  the complainant  but as discussed earlier  we are dealing with  only the  question  of deficiency  in service on the part of the opponent –Bank by not  paying  back the amount to the complainant as claimed  and no other  aspects.  We do find  from the several  documents  and papers  filed before us by the  complainant  that the  complainant  had  not received  the  amount  of Rs. 4,65,010/- which had come  to be sanctioned  to him and he had also suffered  on account  of delay as  the booking of the flat was also  cancelled  on account of delay and loss of amount by way of interest.

10.       Next contention raised  by the complainant  is that  he was not  granted  the loan  asked  for  but he was  also  not returned  the housing  loan  documents  on the ground  that  same  would be returned  only  after  instructions  from  the Zonal Office. Mr. Niyogi, learned advocate for the opponent  bank  has rebutted  this contention  and has  pointed out before us  that  all  documents  relating  to the housing  loan were returned  to the complainant. In order to support this contention the opponent –Bank has relied upon one letter dated 06/10/2000 by Senior Manager, addressed to the complainant. This letter also bears an endorsement that the said documents are received and same is at page No 143 of the compilation. It appears that all the original documents were submitted by the complainant to the Corporation Bank as per Hon’ble High Court order dated 20/09/2006. The complainant has drawn our attention to the copy of e-mail addressed by Nagpur Branch and same is at page Nos. 121 and 122. The complainant has contended that all the original documents are not returned and some are still with the bank but no details are given except relying upon copies of e-mails.  In order to support his contention the complainant has also relied  upon one judgment  of the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Binod Dokania and Anr Vs. IDBI Bank Limited,  Consumer Complaint No. 2218/2018, decided on 20/02/2023. In that case also  the home loan was sanctioned  to the complainant  and in order to secure  the said loan  the complainant  was directed  to  deposit the original  title deed  and so  the complainant  submitted  the original  title deed. The O.P.- IDBI Bank failed to return the original  documents  on the ground that the  documents  were damaged  on  account of fire. It was observed by the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission that the IDBI Bank had committed deficiency in service by not handing over all documents to complainant and so the complainant was not able to sell his property. In that case the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission had also given directions and compensation was also awarded.

11.       Lastly, the complainant has contended before us that the  opponent–Bank has committed deficiency in service by blocking and withholding  funds  in his  inoperative  account  and by not giving  any interest  on the amount for  last more than 20 years. The complainant has contended that his case was not considered and he was also not given permission to take loan from any other nationalized bank. The complainant has contended that the builder has issued three legal notices to the bank for releasing the payment and we have dealt with this aspect. The complainant has contended that he has suffered huge monetary loss by way of losing interest since 17/07/1998. The complainant has claimed monetary loss on account of purchase of stamp and towards rent and we find much force in this contention.

12.       Coming now to the tenability of the complaint, the opponent –Corporation Bank has taken a plea that the present complaint was not maintainable in law as same is barred by limitation.  The opponent has contended that  as per  the case  of the complainant  the cause of action  for the  complainant   had arisen on 23/11/2000  but the complaint was not filed  within  a period of two years  as per Section  24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, but came to be filed on 25/02/2020 after great delay without any application for condonation of delay. The complainant has strongly opposed this contention and has submitted before us that the cause of action has not arisen by the cancellation of booking of the flat but had arisen by non payment  of the amount due to him.  The complainant has contended  that  the cause of action  would  be continuous   as the opponent – Bank had  failed  to  not only  the original loan amount of Rs. 4,65,010/- but  further  pay to  interest continuously.  We have gone through the record. No doubt booking of the flat  was cancelled  on 23/11/2000 but here   in the present  case  the complainant  was not  claiming  possession  of the flat but was claiming  the  amount as well as interest which was  blocked.  The complainant has placed on record copies of several letters received from the  Chief Manager of the Branch as well as  by the Zonal  Office dated 10/07/2020 and 05/03/2020. Further   there are ample documents on record to show that there was correspondence going  on between  the complainant and opponent  in respect of  the  granting of interest.  As such we are unable to accept the contention of Mr. Niyogi, learned advocate for the opponent that the complaint was barred by limitation as  cause of  action  arose  on 23/11/2000 when booking  was cancelled. The learned advocate for the opponent  has also  contended that  the present  complaint is  bad for non  joinder of necessary parties. The  opponent  has contended  in the written  version  that   the  averments  made in the complaint are relating  to the Bhopal Branch  of  Corporation Bank and transaction was also  carried out at Bhopal Branch  and so  Head Office of Corporation Bank was necessary party being  Central Authority  and therefore  the  complaint was not  tenable on this count.   We have heard  the complainant  on this aspect and  also perused  the record. No doubt the complaint  was relating  to the transaction which had taken place  at  Bhopal Branch  of the  Corporation Bank but we find that  part of  transaction  relating  to the  submission of security  had also taken  at Nagpur. Moreover,  we find that  two accounts of the complainant  bearing account No.SHL/2/980004 and SSHL/2/98003 were already  closed and so we feel that the Branch at Bhopal or Head Office cannot be termed  as necessary party and so we are  unable to  accept  the contention  of the  advocate for the opponent.

13.       During the course  of argument  the complainant  has also placed reliance upon  one judgment  of the  U.P. State Consumer Commission,  in the case of  Pawan Singh Vs. M/s. S.V.P. Builders  (India) Ltd. Complaint No. 144 of 2018, decided on 08/07/2022  and one judgment  of the  Punjab State Consumer Commission, Punjab  in the case Mrs. Hardesh Mehta Vs. Parkwood Developers Pvt. Ltd., Compliant No. 07/2021, decided on 07/05/2021. We have gone through both these judgments but in both these judgments the complainant was seeking possession of flat and also execution of sale deed.  In that  case  the complainant was residing  in  tenanted accommodation  and paying  rent at the rate of 5,000/- per month while waiting  for  possession of  flat. Similarly in the case of Mrs. Hardesh Mehta Vs. Parkwood Developers Pvt. Ltd. (cited supra) the complainant  had booked the flat  and had also  made payment  but was not  handed over the possession  and so  he had filed  complaint  seeking  possession  of the flat but in the  present case  relief claimed by the complainant  is not  regarding  possession of the flat at all and so both  the above judgments  on which  reliance  is placed by the  complainant are not applicable  to the fact of the present  case.  Further complainant  has also  placed reliance upon  one judgment  of the State Consumer Commission, Punjab  in the case of SBI Vs.  Pawan Kumar Sharma, First Appeal No.  220/2010, decided on 07/11/2013.  In that case the complainant  had taken  housing  loan  and  at the time of  retirement his loan was not  adjusted and O.P. illegally deposited  the loan  amount towards PF and gratuity but we find that this  judgment  is also not applicable to the fact of the  present case.  

14.       So far as main contention of the complainant is concerned, we do find that  the amount of Rs. 4,65,010/- was not paid  to the complainant as claimed and was kept  in  inoperative  account, although  it was in the name of the complainant.  Further, we find that the opponent – Corporation Bank had also not sanctioned the loan as per the scheme meant for the employees. If  we go through  the reply filed by the  opponent – Corporation Bank, the bank has only denied  the contentions but has not placed on record any documents  so as to show  that  the  bank was not liable  to sanction  the loan to the Complainant – Sadiq  Qureshi. The opponent – Corporation Bank has not  placed  on record  any documents  which  could  go to show that  there were discrepancy in the accounts of complainant  or  that  the  complainant  was not  at all eligible  for  the housing loan meant for the employees as contended . As such  we hold that  the  opponent- Bank   has committed  deficiency in service  by withholding   the  amount of the complainant  in  inoperative account without  giving  satisfactory  reason  for the same  and   for not paying  interest to the complainant since  beginning. The complainant has claimed  an amount  of Rs. 4,65,010/- along with interest  at the rate of 16.25%  but we  feel that  the interest  is on higher  side. The complainant has also claimed  sum of Rs. 56,350/- towards purchase of stamp and Rs. 1,00,000/-, Rs. 5,00,000/- and Rs. 2,00,000/- towards  loss by way of  sale and  loss  towards  agreement  of house but we find  that no  such documents  or material  are placed on record to support  the same.  But  it is  clearly  seen   that  the amount of Rs. 4,64,010/- was not  paid  to the complainant  since more than 20 years  thereby causing   mental harassment  to the complainant.  The complainant is therefore entitled for compensation towards mental harassment and so we pass the following order.

ORDER

i.          Complaint is partly allowed.

ii.          It is hereby declared that the opponent – Bank has committed deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

iii.         Opponent- Corporation Bank is directed to  pay  the  sum of Rs. 4,65,010/- along with  interest  at the rate of             12% p.a. from 17/07/1998 to 25/02/2020 to the complainant.

iv.        Opponent- Corporation Bank is  further directed to  hand over to complainant all remaining original documents relating  to the transaction  at Bhopal within  the period of three months.

v.         Opponent- Corporation Bank is  further directed to  issue  No Objection Certificate  in favour  of the complainant as prayed  so that  he can take  Housing Loan from any other Banking  Agency.

vi.        Opponent- Corporation Bank shall  further  pay  compensation  of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards mental  harassment caused to the complainant.

vii.        Copy of order be furnished to both the parties, free of cost.