ORDER 03      Date-29.10.2021

Record is taken up for order with regard to admission of the consumer complaint.  The matter was heard on 27.10.2021.

              The brief facts as narrated by the complainant in the complaint are that the OP-3 had purchased the subject two storied building measuring an area of 700 sq. ft. each with Bastu land after obtaining house building loan from OP-1 Bank.  OP-3 executed an agreement for sale with the son of the complainant to purchase  the schedule building and land at a total consideration Rs. 35,00,000/- on condition to repay the balance  housing loan of OP-3 . During existence of sale agreement dated 27.07.2020 purchaser Bitoo Shaw dled and on his de’‘ath the complainant being the mother of the decesed paid the entire dues of the bank and a fresh agreement for sale dated 19.05.2021 was executed between the complainant and OP-3.  Complainant paid entire loan amount of Rs. 25,63,231/- to the OP-1 Bank with a request to foreclose  the loan account of OP-3 and issue NOC in her favour. Despite payment of entire loan amount, the OP-1 bank did not issue NOC in favour of the complainant. The OP-3 failed and neglected to execute and register the schedule building with Bastu land to the complainant. Legal notice dated 18.08.20121 was unattended. Hence, the instant consumer complaint.

                        Complainant is not a consumer under the OPs 1 and 2/ Axis Bank or avails any services from them. As such, there is no consumer dispute between the complainant and the OPs 1 and 2. More so, there is no tri-parted agreement between the complainant and her decesed son in one part and the OPs 1 and 2 in other part . Thus, the question of return of  title deed and NOC regarding liquidation of housing loan  in favour of the complainant does not arise at all as OPs 1 and 2/ Axis Bank sanctioned housing loan in favour of the OP-3. Complainant cannot claim that OPs 1 and 2 are liable to return title deed and NOC in her favour.

             The alleged dispute is purely between the complainant and OP-3. Cause title of the complaint petition goes to show that complainant and OP-3 are inhabitant outside the territorial jurisdiction of this commission. Thus, this commission is not inclined to entertain the complaint.

From the bare reading of section 34 of CP Act, 2019, it is apparent that the complaint can  be instituted where the complainant is an inhabitant or where the OP-3 use to reside.  The consumer petition be returned to the complainant or his recorded lawyer against proper receipt and identification.

In view of the above discussion, we refused to grant permission to file the instant consumer complaint to this commission and complaint should be filed at a place where the cause of action has arisen.

           Thus, Miscellaneous Application being No. 372/2021 is disposed off. 

In view of foregoing observation, complainant’s application dated 06.09.2021 U/s 38 (8) of CP Act, 2019 is not tenable. Thus, MA being No. 373/2021 is disposed off.

Order be uploaded on