IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday, the 29th day of September, 2015
Filed on 26.09.2013
Present
1.Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2.Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3.Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.294/2013
Between
Complainants:- Opposite Party:-
- Sri. A. Harif The Manager, Sundaram BNP Paribas
Valuparambil Home Finance Ltd., C/o Sundaram
Alissery Ward, Alappuzha – 1 Finance Ltd., 1st Floor
Thondanathu Buildings, Bank Road
- Sri. A.K. Shanavas -do- Behind Police Station
Kayamkulam - 690 502
- Sri. Raiyazudeen -do- (By Adv. Bijily Joseph)
(By Adv. Azeem Muhammed for complainants)
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The parties in CC/No.293/13, 294/13 and 295/13 are same. The dispute raised in all cases are same, points to be considered are same. Hence all the three cases are jointly tried, evidence was taken in CC/No.293/2013 as leading case.
2. The case of the complainants is as follows:-
The complainants availed a home loan by mortgaging the title deed of one acre and 92 cents at Aryad South Village as collateral security. The loan amount was Rs.47 lakhs and the complainants agreed to repay the loan amount in 60 monthly installments monthly for Rs.1,14,295/-. Accordingly the complainants remitted the loan amount without any default. The case of the complainants is that opposite party is not returning back the title deed of the property kept as collateral security own by the complainants. Hence the complaint is filed.
3. The version of the opposite party is as follows:-
The complainants were irregular in making the repayment of the loans is a result of which they became non-performing assets which attached penal interest for the defaulted payments. No excess amount charged or collected from the complainants as alleged by them. The opposite party is ready to hand over the document to the complainants immediately of closure of the loan amount. There is no deficiency in service in service on the part of the opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. The first complainant in CC/293/13, 294/13 and 295/13 was examined as PW1. The document produced was marked as Ext.A1. The opposite party in above 3 cases was examined as RW1. Documents produced were marked as Exts.B1 to B6 series.
5. The points that arose for consideration are as follows:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite party?
2) If so the reliefs and costs?
6. It is an admitted fact that the complainants are the loanees of the opposite party. According to the complainants, they remitted the full loan amount by remitting 60 installments without any default in all three cases. But the opposite party filed version stating that complainants defaulted in remitting the loan amount. Hence they are not willing to return back the title deed of property kept as collateral security owned by the complainants. In order to substantiate their contention, opposite party produced the statement of accounts in CC/No.293/13, 294/13 and 295/13 which marked as Ext.B6 series. On verifying Ext.B6 series we came to see that the statement of account for the period from 1.4.2013 to 31.3.2014 dated 1.11.2014 shows that the opening outstanding as on 31.3.2014 is zero. The statement of account produced by the opposite party dated 1.11.2014 in CC/No.293/13shows that the opening outstanding as on 3011.2013 was zero. In CC/No.295/13 the statement of account for the period from 1.4.2011 to 1/11/2014 dated 1.11.2014 shows that the outstanding as on 30.11.2014 was zero. Hence from the evidence on record it is clear that the opening outstanding as on 30.11.2014 was zero in all the above 3 cases. Had the complainants committed default in remitting the loan amount the opening outstanding will not be zero as on 30.11.2014. Without any evidence, we are unable to find that the complainants had committed default in remitting the monthly installments. Hence we are of opinion that the opposite party committed defect and deficiency in service by repudiating the demand of the complainants.
. In the result, complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to return the title deeds to the complainants within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Since the primary relief is granted no amount as to compensation and costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her correct by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the day 29th of September, 2016.
Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Harif.A. (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Statements of accounts in CC/293/13, 294/13 and 295/13
Evidence of the opposite party:-
RW1 - Vivek (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Authorization ( in three cases)
Ext.B2 - Loan offer letter dated 31.10.2007 (in three cases)
Ext.B3 - Loan agreements (in three cases)
Ext.B4 - Copy of notices (in three cases)
Ext.B5 - Copies of postal acknowledgement cards (in three cases)
Ext.B6 series - Statements of accounts (in three cases)
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite party/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
