Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/1976/2018

Sri K.Prakash, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Syndicate Bank of India, - Opp.Party(s)

01 Mar 2019

ORDER

ORDER

 

Under section 12(3) of consumer protection Act. 1986.

 

SRI.H.Y.VASANTHKUMAR, PRESIDENT 

 

            The Complainant has prayed for direction to OP bank to pay Rs.3 lakhs either as FD or cash with litigation charges alleging already collected Rs.41,500/- in 2004 while sanctioning the housing loan is not repaid from 12 years.

 

          2. The Complainant also filed application U/s.5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay.

 

          3. The case of the Complainant in brief is that, though the OP sanctioned Rs.10,65,000/- housing loan in 2004, he did not avail the amount because of the dispute between his vendor relating to the house property which went till the stage of Hon’ble Supreme Court. He wrote the letter dtd.08.11.17 and also on 11.12.17 through his advocate seeking refund of the amount of processing charge, insurance charge and 3 EMIs amounting to Rs.41,500/- and non-compliance made him to file this complaint.

 

          4. Heard the arguments for the Complainant. Perused the records.

 

          5. The documents 1 to 3 of OP bank disclosed the disbursement of housing loan amount of Rs.10,65,000/- to the account of the Complainant on 16.02.04  and collecting of EMIs and closing of the said account in 2004 itself as on 02.06.04.

 

          6. The Complainant filed specific performance suit O.S.No.15987/2004 till the stage of filing special leave petition 2271/2012 before Supreme Court, where the matter was ended with modification order regarding execution of the sale deed on payment of Rs.25 lakhs less already paid amount and the said dispute ended on 22.09.14. Even in the litigations before the courts relying on Ex-P6 therein, the Complainant had argued about his readiness to pay Rs.10,65,000/- which was deposited in to his account (page no.16 in CCCH-29 judgment). The Supreme Court also in its order at para 8 observed that, OP bank had issued cheque of Rs.10,65,000/- in the name of the Complainant and another cheque for Rs.1,19,840/- in favour of the Sub-Registrar, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru both dtd.16.02.04. It shows that all the loan transactions in favour of the Complainant completed by the Syndicate Bank and closed by the Complainant in 2004 itself with the gap of 4 to 5 months.

 

          7. The limitation starts from 2004 itself and not from the date of issue of legal notice and it is not at the hands of advocate to invoke the Limitation Act when the cause of action starts on its own.

 

          8. From 2004 till 2017, no attempts were made by the Complainant to claim his right over the deducted amount of Rs.41,500/- under various heads. Admittedly Rs.10,500/- is towards EMIs of 3 months is towards the interest payable  and paid towards the availed amount to his loan account. The averments made at para 4 & 5 of the complaint that, he did not with draw the entire sanctioned amount and that the OP issued letter dtd.08.11.17 calling him to contact the office become utter falsehood. On the other hand, the produced document no.6 and the legal notice/doc.no.5 dtd.11.12.17 show that, they were addressed to the OP (inconsistent postal receipt and RPAD) not addressed to the Complainant, wherein also the Complainant has sought refund of Rs.41,500/- which was kept since 12 years in the OP bank.

 

9. The above pleadings and the documentary evidence clearly show that, the Complainant has filed this complaint relating to 12 years old closed housing loan account on baseless allegations without complying Sec.24A of CP Act and also U/s.5 of Limitation Act. The processing charges and insurance amount being charged by the banks cannot be refunded to the loanee and he has not objected the same when loan was closed by himself in 2004. The payment of 3 months interest was for the loan amount already obtained. As declared even before disposal authorities also became non-refundable amount and they are the amount collected in accordance with law and procedure. Such being the case, filing of this complaint after 12 years of gap based on untenable cause of action amounts to beating of the dead horse and cannot be allowed to be determined before consumer forum. Thereby, the Complainant who has not approached this consumer forum with clean hands deserves to get the following:

 

                       ORDER

 

The CC.No.1976/2018 filed by the Complainant is rejected.

 

 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Forum on 01^st March 2019).

 

 

 

 

 

(ROOPA.N.R)    MEMBER

(VASANTHKUMAR.H.Y)  PRESIDENT