Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/17/95

Sri Ram Prasad - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Binod Kumar Singh

12 Jul 2022

ORDER

District Consumer Commission, Bokaro.

Case No. 95/2017

 Date of Filing-23-06-2017

 Date of Order-12-07-2022

1. Sri Ram Prasad, S/o- Late Ashik Prasad

R/o Vill- Kasmar, P.O.&P.S- Kashmar, District- Bokaro.

                                      Vr.

1. The Manger, ICICI Bank Ltd.,

City Centre, Sector-04, Bokaro Steel City

2.  The Authorized Officer, Asset Reconstruction Co. India Ltd. 113, 1^st Floor, Maa Bhagwati Complex, Boring Road Chauraha, West Boring Canal Road, Patna

 

Present:-

          Shri Jai Prakash Narayan Pandey, President

           Shri Bhawani Prasad Lal Das, Member

          Smt. Baby Kumari, Member

                                                -Order-

1. This case has been filed by the complainant with prayer to direct the O.Ps. to return the Original documents related to house of the complainant which were taken at the time of sanction of house loan and to pay Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and litigation cost respectively to the complainant.
2.  Complainant ‘s case in brief is that he applied for house loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- with the O.P. ICICI Bank Ltd. City Centre, Sector-4, B.S. City Bokaro Branch (here in after referred as O.P.No.1) on it loan for Rs. 3,00,000/- was sanctioned vide loan A/c No. LBBKA-00000635811 from which Rs. 2,94,000/- was disbursed. As per loan agreement complainant handed over the cheques equal to number of installments to the O.P. No.1 for payment of EMI. Sometime in the year 2009 due to some financial difficulties EMIs were not paid hence C.C. No. 1086/2009 was filed before the Lok Adalat, Civil Court, Bokaro by the O.P. No.1 for recovery of Rs. 1,16,300/- which was settled and decided on 29.08.2009 with direction to the complainant to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- at once and to pay rest of the amount in installment of Rs. 4,676/- per month. When complainant visited the bank for deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/- as per above order then O.P. No.1 directed to deposit only Rs. 70,140/- because due to calculation mistake they have given wrong figure earlier. Thereafter, complainant paid rest of the amount in the installments @ Rs. 4,676/- per month and requested O.P. No.1 for return of his original property documents vide letter dt. 01.03.2011 &  24.01.2012 etc. Further case is that complainant received notice dt. 25.10.2012 issued by THE AUTHORISED OFFICER Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. showing outstanding demand of Rs. 4,35,868.96 on it again he filed P.L. Case No. 02/2013 before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Bokaro which has been dismissed on 02.03.2015 with observation that the dispute may be heard and decided by the Court which has previously passed the award. Further case is that again O.P. No.2 issued notice dt. 25.02.2014 u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI ACT 2002 demanding Rs. 4,35,868.96 for settlement of loan account within 60 days and it was replied by the complainant thereafter he  filed S.A. Case No. 04/2015 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal At Ranchi against both the O.Ps. which was allowed on 07.03.2017 and order was passed in favour of the complainant. Inspite of said order no action was taken hence legal notice was served having no impact hence this case has been filed.
3. O.P. No.1 appeared and has filed W.S. mentioning therein that case is time barred. Further reply is that concerned documents are with O.P. No.2 and this O.P. having no document. This O.P. has admitted the fact related to sanction of loan, disbursement of the loan, filing of C.C. No. 1086/2009, P.L. Case No. 10/2009 and its decision dt. 29.08.2009 filing of case before the D.R.T. Ranchi and its order etc.
4. O.P. No. 2 Assets Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. (here in after referred as ARCIL) has also filed W.S. mentioning therein that this O.P. is having no jural relationship between the complainant hence this case is not maintainable against the O.P. under the provision of Consumer Protection Act. He has also admitted the fact related to grant of loan, filing of case etc. Further reply is that the loan account of the complainant has already been declared NPA and there is no cause of action against this O.P.
5.  Point for consideration is whether complainant is entitled to get relief as claimed or not?
6. On perusal of the plaint it appears that at para 11 & 12 of the complaint petition complainant has mentioned about filing of S.A. Case No. 04/2015 before Debts Recovery Tribunal Ranchi but O.P. No.2 has not given any specific reply about it. The Annexure-2 is the photo copy of order of the Lok Adalat, Bokaro passed in P.L. No. 10/2009 on 27.08.2009. As per this document O.P. No.1 has approached the Lok Adalat for realization of dues amount of Rs. 1,16,300/- with interest till 01.08.2009 and matter was settled accordingly complainant was directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- till  31.12.2009 and further to pay monthly installment amounting to Rs. 4,676/-. It appears that later on O.P. No.1 not complied the order of the Lok Adalat rather complainant was compelled to pay only Rs. 70,140/- saying it calculation mistake  instead of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
7. Second important fact is that the issuance of notice under SARFAESI ACT  was challenged before the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Ranchi vide case No. S.A. 04/2015 in which said notice was challenged and both the O.Ps. were made party and vide order dt. 07.03.2017 said case has been allowed with observation that :-
8.  

 

8. It has been informed by the counsel of both the O.Ps. that the order of DRT has not been challenged before the Appellate Authority. Therefore, said order is final in nature and having binding effect on all the parties. The order of the Lok Adalat is also final in nature having binding effect on the parties and it will be treated as decree of the competent court of law. It is admitted fact that at present the title deeds related to house concerned deposited by the complainant are in possession of the O.P. No.2.
9. In light of above discussion as well as in view of the orders passed by the Lok Adalat and DRT Ranchi   we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on part of both the O.Ps. who have not returned the original deed of the complainant. Accordingly this point is being decided in favour of the complainant.
10.  Thus, we find and hold that complainant is entitled to get relief in the following manner:-

1. O.P. No.2 (ARCIL) is directed to return the original property documents relating to house of the complainant deposited at time of sanction of the loan to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt or production of this order.
2. O.P. No. 1 is directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation in respect to harassment caused to the complainant and also to pay Rs. 5000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt or production of this order.

11. Accordingly prayer is being allowed as indicated above.