Date of filing:      09.09.2019

                                                                                                                                 Date of disposal : 21.11.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

 

 BEFORE  TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law)                 .…. PRESIDENT

                 THIRU.P.MURUGAN,M.Com.ICWA(Inter),B.L.,                                        ....MEMBER-II

 

RBT/CC. No.124/2022

THIS MONDAY, THE 21st DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022

(CC.No.124/2019 sent from DCDRC, Chennai North)

 

Mr. P.P.Padmanaban, S/o.Late M Andy,

Residing at No.363, Roja Street,

Poompuzhil Nagar,

Kovilpadagai, Adadi, Chennai -62.                                                ……Complainant.     

                                                                          //Vs//

The Federal Bank Limited,

Rep. by its Branch Manager,

Anna Nagar Branch, C 48, T.N.H.B Complex,

2nd Avenue, Anna Nagar, Chennai 40.                                     .......Opposite party. 

 

Counsel for the complainant                                   :   Mr.H.Suresh Babu, Advocate.

Counsel for the opposite party                               :   M/s.P.V.Murlidhar, Advocate.

                         

This complaint has been filed before DCDRC, Chennai (North) as CC.No.124/2019 and transferred to this commission by the order of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai and taken on file as CC.No.124/2022 and this complaint coming before us on various dates and finally on 08.11.20122 in the presence of Mr.H.Suresh Babu Advocate, counsel for the complainant and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both parties, this Commission delivered the following: 

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI,   PRESIDENT.

 

This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service in not issuing the No Due Certificate and in not returning the original title deeds along with a prayer to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the deficiency in service and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards loss and suffering of the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards the cost of the complaint and direct the opposite party to give a discharge letter towards the loan of the federal housing scheme agreement dated 22.04.2010 vide Loan Account No.13247300006220 and to return the original sale deed pertaining to the property of the complainant.

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

 

The complainant a senior citizen had purchased the property at Flat No.363, Roja Street, Poompuzhil Nagar, Kovilpadagi, Avadi-600 062 in his name and his wife name and was enjoying the property by putting up construction in the ground floor.  For construction in the 1st floor he availed loan from the opposite party to the tune of Rs.9,74,341/- under the Federal Housing Scheme Agreement dated 22.04.2010 vide loan account No.13247300006220.  The loan was paid in 96 EMIs at Rs.14,022/-.  The original Sale Deed pertaining to the property was given as collateral security to the opposite party.  The loan amount was paid in full and finally on 16.05.2018 the instalment was paid.  The complainant’s wife died on 08.07.2015 which was intimated to the opposite party.  However, the opposite party failed to return the original documents and issue discharge letter towards clearance of the loan.  Thus aggrieved the present complaint was filed for the relief as mentioned below;

To pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the deficiency in service;

 To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards loss and suffering of the complainant;

 To pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards the cost of the complaint;

 Direct the opposite party to give a discharge letter towards the loan of the federal housing scheme agreement dated 22.04.2010 vide Loan Account No.13247300006220;

 To return the original sale deed pertaining to the property of the complainant.

Crux of the defence put forth by the opposite party:-

Disputing the complaint allegations the opposite party filed the version contending inter alia that the loan availed by the complainant is true and the clearance of the loan was also admitted.  However, as the wife of the complainant was a joint owner of the property mortgaged, the title deeds could not be solely given to the complainant without the permission of other legal heirs.  It was specifically stated and explained to the complainant that all the legal heirs of his wife should sign the Application for release of the original title deeds which was not accepted by the complainant and he was very much adamant that he could not give such application signed by other legal heirs.  This measure was practiced to avoid any future disputes from the legal heirs which was also mandated by the Banking regulations.  Thus the opposite party was unable to release the title deeds and there was no deficiency in service on their part and sought for the complaint to be dismissed.

On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and submitted documents marked as Ex.A1 to A4. Though written version was filed by the opposite party they did not file any proof affidavit and written arguments on their side.

Points for consideration:

Whether the act of opposite party in not issuing the No Due Certificate and in not returning the original title deeds even after the entire loan amount was re-paid by the complainant amounts to deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant?

If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?

Point No.1:-

The following documents were filed on the side of complainant in support of his contentions;

Loan Agreement dated 22.04.2010 was marked as Ex.A1;

Challan for Rs.25,629/- dated 16.05.2018 was marked as Ex.A2;

Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party dated 17.06.2019 was marked as Ex.A3;

 Postal acknowledgement card for proof of delivery was marked as Ex.A4;

 Point No.1:-

The crux of the learned counsel appearing for the complainant is that when the loan was obtained from bank it is the duty of the bank to return the original documents received at the time of lending loan along with No Due Certificate on re-payment of the entire loan amount.  He argued that the request by the bank for the legal heirs to give authority in favour of complainant to receive the original documents is not proper and thus he sought for the complaint to be allowed and sought for a direction to the Bank to issue No Due Certificate and to return the original documents.  

On the other hand, as per the version of the opposite party it is stated that they wanted an authority from other legal heirs for them to issue the No Due Certificate and for return of documents.

It is an admitted fact by the complainant that the property stands in the name of himself and his wife.  It is seen that the opposite party did not deny the fact of re-payment of the entire loan amount by the complainant.  However, it is the contention of the opposite party that they required an authority from the other legal heirs in favour of the complainant to receive the original documents and No Due Certificate as the complainant’s wife was dead.  In such facts and circumstance we are of the view that the following a specific procedure by the Bank as per their own norms in the issuance of No Due Certificate and return of documents in the matter of death of one of the owner of the property mortgaged with them could not be found fault with and could not be termed as deficiency in service.  It is stated by Bank that they were always willing and ready to give the No Due Certificate and the documents to the complainant if the procedure is complied with by the complainant.  In such circumstances this commission did not cull out any deficiency in service on the part of the Bank.  This point is answered accordingly in favour of the opposite party and as against the complainant.  

Point No.2:-

As we have held above that the complainant had failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, he is not entitled to any reliefs as claimed in the complaint from the opposite party.  Thus we answer the point accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No order as to cost. 

Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 22nd day of November 2022.

 

 

 

 

  Sd/-                                                                                                                    Sd/-

MEMBER-II                                                                                                    PRESIDENT

 

List of document filed by the complainant:-

 

Ex.A1 22.04.2010 Loan Agreement. Xerox

Ex.A2 16.05.2018 Challan For Rs.25,629/-. Xerox

Ex.A3 17.06.2019 Legal notice issued by the complainant. Xerox

Ex.A4 ............ Acknowledgement card. Xerox

 

List of documents filed by the opposite party:-

 

 

Nil

 

  

    Sd/-                                                                                                                 Sd/-

MEMBER-II                                                                                                  PRESIDENT