Haryana

Panchkula

CC/33/2018

MRS. KANCHAN VASUDEVA - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE GENERAL MANAGER,STATE BANK OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

PANKAJ CHANDGOTHIA

29 Jul 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANCHKULA

 

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	33 of 2018
Date of Institution	:	13.02.2018
Date of Decision	:	29.07.2022

 

 

Smt.Kanchan Vasudeva w/o Late Sh. P.K.Vasudeva, resident of H.No.634, Sector-10, Panchkula.

    ..….Complainant

Versus                                                                  

1.     The General Manager, State Bank of India, Chandimandir Cantt.

2.     State Bank of India, Regional Business Office, Sector-5, Panchkula- 134113        

                                                                      ……Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

 

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

 

For the Parties:   Ms. Sapna Vasudeva, Advocate for the complainant.

                        Ms. Alka Joshi, Advocate for OPs.

                       

                                               

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

 

1.             The brief facts of the present complaint as alleged are that the deceased husband Late Sh. P.K.Vasudeva, of the complainant took a housing loan from the OP No.1 through Equitable Mortgage of title deeds of House No.634, Sector-7, Panchkula and the said loan stands fully repaid since August, 2007. Thereafter, the complainant has been regularly visiting the OPs for release of the subject Title Deeds, but she has been wrongly put off on one pretext or the other. It is stated that the bank has no right to retain any title documents equitable mortgaged with it, after the full and final repayment of the concerned loan. The retention of the subject title deeds by the Bank, has prevented from even starting the process of transfer of the said property in her and other legal heir’s name. The delay in applying for the transfer on the basis of the death of her husband, will further hamper the process. It is also stated that when the complainant last visited the OP No.1 on 26.12.2017, the loan staff told the complainant that the said title deeds are untraceable and the Bank had misplaced them and that is why they were unable to return the said documents and they were also not replying to the legal notice sent by the complainant. After receiving the legal notice, an officer of the bank called up the Advocate of the complainant seeking details of the case. The Bank officer said that they did not have any reference or knowledge of the case. The Advocate gave them the particulars, thereafter, the person requested the Advocate to sent the legal notice again at agm1.zohar and sbi.50195, which was duly done vide email dated 16.01.2018. However, the bank has maintained a stoic silence on the issue of release of Title deeds, because they have misplaced the title deeds. The action of the bank amounts to grave deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Due to the act and conduct of the OPs, the complainant has suffered a great financial loss and mental agony, harassment; hence, the present complaint.

2.             Upon notices, OPs No.1 & 2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable; has not come with clean hands and suppressed the true and material facts; no locus-sandi and estoppels. It is stated that  as per judgment and decree  dated 24.02.2015 and the Ld. Court of Ms.Anudeep Kaur Bhatti, the then Addl. Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Panchukla partly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs by holding that the plaintiffs namely (1) Vandna Vasudeva (2) Arjun Vasudeva (3) Ananya Vasudeva of Late Sh.Sanjay Vasudeva son of Sh.P.K.Vasudeva are owners of the said house to the extent of 1/16^th share each as such, the complainant alone has got no exclusive right to claim the title deed from the OPs  without the consent of the other owners of the house in question. It is also stated that Late Sh. P.K.Vasudeva obtained the loan from the office of the OP No.1 and deposited his title deed in an equitable mortgage in respect of House No.634, Sector-7, Panchkula. As per information given by the complainant, her husband Sh. P.K. Vasudeva had died inte-state. Shri P.K.Vasudeva had one son namely Shri Sanjay Vasudeva and two daughters namely, Sapna Yadav and Pooja Sharma, However, the said Sanjay Vasudeva also expired leaving behind his widow Smt. Vandna Vasudeva and two sons Arjun and Annanaya Vasadeva. There is a Civil dispute qua the ownership of the house No.634, Sector-10, Panchkula between the legal heirs and the Ld. Court of Ms. Anudeep Kaur Bhatti, the then Addl.Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Panchkula partly decreed the suit vide judgment and decree  dated 24.02.2015 and held the legal heirs of late Shri Sanjay Sharma to the extent of 1/16^th share each in the house No.634, Sector-10, Panchkula. The complainant has earlier issued a legal notice upon the OPs and the OPs through their counsel replied the same vide reply dated 15.02.2018 in which it was further suggested the complainant to come in the bank with no objection of all the other legal heirs for getting the original document but the complainant did not come present in the office of the OPs. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.1 & 2 and the complainant has not suffered any harassment or agony and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3.             Rejoinder to the written statements of the OPs was filed by the complainant reiterating the contents of the complaint while controverting the contentions of the OPs.

4.             The ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with document Annexure C-1 to C-5 and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered affidavit Annexure R/A along with document Annexure R-1 and closed the evidence.

5.             We have heard the learned counsels for both the parties and gone through the entire record available on file, minutely and carefully.

6.             During arguments,  the learned counsel for the complainant reiterating the averments made in the complaint, has prayed for acceptance of the complaint by releasing the title deeds qua the house no.634, Sector-10, Panchkula,  to the complainant which are lying in the custody of O/o Estate Office, HSVP, Panchkula. The learned counsel has prayed for compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment and litigations charges as the OP has been deficient while rendering the services to the complainant.

7.             The Ops have resisted the complaint by filing the detailed written statement alleging, therein, that the complainant is not sole/exclusive owner of the house in question as the learned Court of Ms.Anudeep Kaur Bhatti vide its judgment/decree dated 24.02.2015 has held all the contestants in the Civil Suit No.2099/2009 as owners in the said house in certain shares. The learned counsel has denied any lapse and deficiency on the part of the Ops and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint being baseless and meritless.

8.             After hearing the rival contentions of learned counsels for both the parties and perusing the entire record available on the file, it is found that the main prayer of the complainant in the present complaint is with regard to  release  and handling over the title deed pertaining  to the house No.634, Sector-10(wrongly mentioned as Sector-7 as admitted by the learned counsel for the complainant vide her statement dated 13.05.2019), Panchkula to the complainant  for the purposes of enabling  her to get the ownership record  updated in the record  of HUDA as per judgment/decree  dated 24.02.2015 passed by Ms. Anudeep Kaur Bhatti, Addl. Civil Judge(Sr. Division), Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as judgment/decree dated 24.02.2015). Undisputedly, the loan availed by the deceased Late Sh. P.K.Vasudeva by depositing the title deed of the said house has already been re-paid and that no amount is due towards the Ops/Bank. Since the other LRs have also been held to be lawful owner including the complainant qua the ownership of the said house as per the said judgment/decree dated 24.02.2015, the Ops were directed vide our dated 13.05.2019 to deposit the title deed pertaining to the house in question in the O/o Estate Office, HSVP, Panchkula against proper receipt/acknowledgment. The Ops in compliance of the said order dated 13.05.2019 deposited the title deed in the O/o Estate Office, HSVP, Panchkula vide diary no.112840 dated 24.06.2019. Thereafter, an application was moved by  the O/o Estate Office, HSVP, Sector-6, Panchkula, mentioning therein that the papers of the conveyance deed as deposited vide diary 112840 dated 24.06.2019 were not complete. On the other hand, the Ops opposed the said application by filing reply thereto mentioning therein that all the papers qua conveyance deed were delivered in the O/o Estate Office, HSVP, Panchkula. We need not go into controversy as to whether all the papers of conveyance deed were delivered in the O/o Estate Office, HSVP, Panchkula or not as one copy of conveyance deed is already in the O/o Estate Office, HSVP, Panchkula and another original copy is available in the O/o Sub Registrar, Panchkula.

9.             During the pendency of the complaint, The Estate Officer, HSVP, Panchkula was directed vide our dated 07.09.2021 to depute the Law Officer posted in his office alongwith relevant instructions governing   the transfer of the plot among legal heirs in case of death of allottees. In response to the said order, the Estate Office has sent his submissions mentioning therein that the plot in question stands in the name of Sh.P.K.Vasudeva, who is husband of the complainant, in the record of the HSVP and a Civil suit no.2099 of 2009 was filed by legal heirs of the said allottees wherein the following order was passed as under:-

                        “As a sequel to above discussion, the suit of the plaintiff partly decreed.       Plaintiffs no.1 to 3 are held to be entitled to 1/16^th share each in the house no.634,        Sector-10, Panchkula, the defendant no.5 is directed to transfer the property   accordingly subject to fees and charges applicable and other formalities. The           defendants no.1 to 3 are restrained from alienating the property to the extent of the      share of the plaintiffs. Since, the plaintiffs are co-owners in the property they already     have the symbolic possession in the suit property through other co-shares. No orders        as to the costs”.

10.            Now, the main grievance of the complaint is that the ownership of the house be got reflected in their name as per decree dated 24.02.2015 as per HUDA policy. In this regard, O/o Estate Office, HSVP, Panchkula has reproduced as under:-

                        “There is a procedure/guidelines adopted by HSVP for transfer the property in          PPM through online applied completed all formalities as ID proof of legal heirs      alongwith their relationship proof. Legal heirs certificate, death certificate, ID proof of    witness on indemnity bond etc. and fee Rs. 1000/- online payment.

11.            It is further pointed out by the O/o HSVP Panchkula vide its reply/submissions dated 23.11.2021 that the LRs of deceased P.K. Vasudeva have to apply online for the transfer of the ownership of the said house along with relevant documents, details of which is enclosed with the said reply/submissions. It is relevant to mention here that the learned Civil Court vide its said decree/judgment dated 24.02.2015 had directed the defendant no.5 i.e. O/o Estate Office, HSVP, Panchkula to transfer the property as per the shares  mentioned  in the decree subject to fee and charges applicable and other formalities. In our opinion, the grievances of the complainant would be entirely redressed, in case,  the complainant including the other LRs apply online for the transfer of the ownership qua the house in question as per the shares determined by the Civil Court judgment/decree dated as per HUDA policy or in the alternative, the LRs or the complainant may approach the learned Civil Court by way of filing execution application under Section 21 Rules 32/5 CPC as opined by the O/o Estate Office, HSVP, Panchkula, vide his reply/submissions dated 23.11.2021. There shall be no order as to the compensation or any cost keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the complaint; hence, the complaint is disposed of accordingly.

12.            A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced on: 29.07.2022

 

 

 

          Dr.Sushma Garg         Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini             Satpal

                  Member                  Member                          President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                             Satpal

                                            President