Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/06/2015

G.Bhaskaran, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The General Manager, SBI , Local Head Office, - Opp.Party(s)

T.Sunder Rajan

23 Mar 2018

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  17.04.2014

                                                                Order pronounced on:  23.03.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

        PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

              THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

 

FRIDAY   THE 23^rd   DAY OF MARCH 2018

 

C.C.NO.06/2015

 

 

G.Bhaskar,

Plot No.22, Seeyathamman Nagar,

Balaji Street,

Vivekananda Main Road,

Kolathur, Chennai – 600 099.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1.The General Manager,

State Bank of India,

Local Head Office,

Circle Top House,

No.16, College Lane,

Chennai – 600 006.

 

2. The State Bank of India,

Anna Nagar Branch,

Rep by its Branch Manager,

AG – 1, Shanthi Colony,

Chennai – 600 040.

 

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 07.01.2015

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s. T.Sundar Rajan, Bhargavi Sundar

                                                                    Rajan

 

Counsel for Opposite Parties                   : M/s. P.D.Audikesavalu, K.kumaran,

                                                                   Kavitha Audikesavalu, R.Vigneswaran     

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the opposite parties to pay compensation for deficiency in service u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant along with his wife Mrs. Meena had availed a housing loan from the 2^nd opposite party on 15.04.2002 under A/C.No 10181436513 for the purpose of purchase of a residential house of the said property. The complainant is the co-applicant for the said loan. From the date of availing of the loan till date of closure, the complainant has paid 110 instalments of Rs.4,339/- each amounting to Rs.4,77,290/- and a processing charge of Rs.7,600/- totally amounting to Rs.4,85,890/- towards the loan.

          2. Due to a dispute  between the complainant and his wife Mrs.Meena Baskar, the said Mrs.Meena Baskar had filed a Divorce Petition against the complainant on the file of the 1^st  Additional Family Court at Chennai in O.P.No 3152 of 2011 which is pending. He had also filed the Civil Suit C.S.No. 752 of 211 against the said Mrs. Meena Baskar on the file of the High Court, Madras for declaring that the complainant is the absolute owner of the property.

          3. Due to the dispute between the complainant and his wife, he met the Manager of the 2^nd opposite party and requested him not to release the title deeds of the property in equitable mortgage with the 2^nd opposite party to the said Mrs.Meena Baskar in case she pre-closes the loan, without intimating the complainant, until the dispute between the complainant and his wife Mrs. Meena Baskar is resolved. The 2^nd opposite party had agreed to such request and asked the complainant to send a written request with all the details. The complainant issued legal notice dated 12.12.2011 to the 2^nd opposite party to refrain from realizing the documents.  While so, on 23.04.2012 when the complainant had given his savings bank pass book for entry, he was shocked to see that from January 2012 his account was not debited with the loan installments. The complainant states that he made enquiries from the 2^nd opposite party who had informed him that the wife of the complainant had pre closed the loan account on 20.12.2011 by paying a sum of Rs.2,09,373/- and obtained a return of the original title deeds deposited with the 2^nd opposite party. The complainant is a Co-applicant of the loan A/c.No. 10181436513 and he has repaid the 110 installments of the loan and the customer of the opposite parties. The opposite party has colluded with the said Mrs. Meena Baskar and handed over the original title deeds to her, moreover during pendency of the civil suit C.S.No 752 of 2011 on the file of the High Court, Madras in which the owner of the property is yet to be decided. The complainant states that such an act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint is field to direct the opposite party to pay compensation for deficiency in service and render justice.

 

         

3. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

          The opposite parties admits that the complainant and his wife were borrowed housing loan from the opposite party. The complainant is a co-applicant and the complainants have paid the entire housing loan borrowed by them. Due to family disputes between the complainant and his wife Mrs.Meena, he had issued notice not to release the title documents to her. As the housing loan have been fully paid and completed as there is no due, the documents of the mortgaged property was returned to Mrs. Meena Baskar on 22.12.2011. Further this complaint is barred  by limitation. Hence this opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.

5. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

6. POINT NO :1 

          The admitted facts are that the complainant and his wife Mrs.Meena has availed a housing loan from the 2^nd opposite party on 15.04.2002 in purchasing the property at No.22, Seeyathamman Nagar, Balaji Street, Vivekanadha Main Road, Kolathur, Chennai-99 was purchased in the name of Mrs. Meena and the complainant stood as co-applicant for the said loan and the loan was also fully redeemed and the complainant wrote Ex.A4 letter to the opposite party not to release the deposited titled documents to his wife till disposal of the case in CS.No.752 of 2011 filed by him against his wife on the file of Hon’ble High Court, Madras.

          7. The complainant case is that he filed a Civil Suit in C.S.No. 752 of 2011 against his wife to declare that he is the absolute owner of the property purchased and the plaint copy of the said case is marked as Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 & A3 are the petition and the counter copy in the divorce proceedings between them in OP.No.31542011 and he also issued Ex.A4 notice to the opposite parties not to release the titled documents and in spite of the notice the opposite parties handed over the document to the complainant’s wife is an unfair trade practice and there by committed deficiency in service.

          8. Admittedly to purchase the property a housing loan was availed from the 2^nd opposite party branch and the said property was purchased in the name of complainant’s wife. In respect of the said loan, the complainant’s wife is the 1^st applicant and this complainant is only a 2^nd applicant. Further the loan was also redeemed and the documents were handed over to the complainant’s wife on 22.12.2011. The complainant filed the Civil Suit to declare him as an owner of the said property. Having filed the suit in the year 2011 itself he could have very well sought the relief in the suit itself restraining this opposite party not to release the document. Without doing so, the complainant after 4 years of filing the suit now alleges deficiency against the opposite party not to release the document is not sustainable. Further the opposite party released the document in favour of Mrs. Meena, who is the owner of the property and also who has deposited the document in the bank. Further the complaint is also barred by limitation, since the document returned in the year 2011 and the complaint filed in the year 2015.The opposite party had rightly returned the document to the owner of the property and therefore this opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service and accordingly this point is answered.  

  

13. POINT NO:2

Since the Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 23^rd day of March 2018.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 04.02.2010                   Copy of Plaint C.S.No.752 of 2011

Ex.A2 dated 25.08.2011                   Copy of  petition in O.P.No.3152 of 2011

Ex.A3 dated 14.11.2011                   Copy of  counter O.P.No.3152 of 2011

Ex.A4 dated 12.12.2011                   Copy of Legal Notice

                                               

Ex.A5 dated 08.05.2012                   Copy of complainant Letter

                                               

 

Ex.A6 dated 14.05.2012                   Copy of Reply letter

                                               

 

Ex.A7 dated 13.08.2013                   Copy of Legal Notice

 

Ex.A8 dated NIL                     SBI Statement of complainant

 

Ex.A9 dated NIL                     SBI Pass Book entries of complainant  

 

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

Ex.B1 dated 22.12.2011                   Written Acknowledgement for receipt of title-

                                                     deeds of the mortgaged property on discharge of

                                                     loan

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT