Complaint filed on: 31-01-2023

                                                      Disposed on:14 -07-2023

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU.

DATED THIS THE 14^th DAY OF JULY 2023

PRESENT

SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, B.Com., LLM., PRESIDENT

SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc. (Agri), LL.B., MBA., MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A., LL.B.(Spl)., LADY MEMBER

Consumer Complaint No.10/2023 

Smt. Nirmala .M.B.

W/o Rudraprasad .V.C.

Aged about 46 years,

R/at Unnathi, 3^rd Main,

4^th Cross, Jayanagara East,

Tumkuru Town,Tumkur District.

………Complainant

(By Sri.B.Somashekara, Advocate)

V/s

The Manager,

LIC Housing Finance Ltd.,

2^nd Floor, Siddaganga Complex,

Near LIC of India, Branch-II,

#127, Andheri Kurla Road,

B.H.Road, Tumkuru.

……….Opposite Party

(By Sri. B.A.Gururaja, Advocate)

:O R D E R:

BY SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH –  LADY MEMBER

          This complaint is filed by the complainant under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the Opposite Party (hereinafter called as OP) with a prayer to direct the OP to return the original documents of the complainant which were received at the time of sanctioning the loan pertains to site property of the complainant and further prays to direct the OP to issue NOC (No objection certificate) for clearance of loan pertains to site property of the complainant. Further, the complainant prays to direct the OP to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for deficiency in service and for mental agony caused to the complainant.

2.       It is the case of the complaint that the complainant is the customer of the OP and availed a loan for purchase of site by furnishing all original documents of title deeds pertains to site property. After collecting all the necessary original documents from the complainant, OP has sanctioned loan vide file no.4114001584 for a principal amount of Rs.6,40,000/- for a period of 60 months with the monthly installment EMI of Rs.13,473/- including the interest in the month of February 2021. After clearance of loan, the complainant has asked for return of original documents which were received by the OP at the time of sanctioning the loan and NOC pertaining to loan vide file No.4114001584. Though the written representation by the complainant dated 05-04-2022 and legal notice issued to OP dated 19-8-2022,  the OP has not returned the original documents of the complainant, nor issued the NOC pertains to loan file no.4114001584. The OP has only sent reply notice dated 15-9-2022. Hence this complaint.    

3.       After service of notice, the OP has appeared through his counsel and filed version, wherein the OP has admitted about sanctioning housing loan to the complainant.  But denied all other allegations made by the complainant as false. The OP further submitted that, the complainant has not deposited any alleged original deeds and documents with the OP in respect of loan transaction. Further the OP has submitted that, if OP has received any original deeds and documents from any customer, the OP surely issued an endorsement as list of original documents to its customer in respect of loan transaction and when the complainant have not produced/deposited the original deeds and documents, then there is not arose the question about return of the original documents. Hence, the OP has prays to dismiss the complainant with cost.

4.       The complainant has filed her affidavit evidence with 10 documents which are marked as Ex.P1 to P10. One Shri.Venkatramaiah Amuri, Area Manager, LIC-HFL, Tumakur has filed his affidavit evidence on behalf of OP with 3 documents. Which are marked as Ex.R1 to R3.

5.       We have heard the oral arguments of both counsels.

6.       The points that would arise for determination are as here under.

1. Whether complainant proves the deficiency in service on the part of OP?

2. Is complainant entitled to the reliefs sought for?

7.       Our findings on the aforesaid points are

Point No.1 : In the affirmative

Point No.2 : Partly affirmative as per               

           the final order for the below.

:R E A S O N S:

Point No.(1) and (2):-

8.       The counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant has availed loan for purchase of site vide file No.4114001584 for a principal loan amount of Rs.6,40,000/- for a period of 60 months with the monthly installment EMI of Rs.13,473. To prove the same the complainant has produced the Ex.C3/ copy of the loan sanction letter and Ex.C4/ copy of the schedule (loan agreement), which are establishes the above argument of the complainant. The OP has also admitted the facts about said loan. Further complainant argued that, the OP has sanctioned the loan for purchase of site by collecting all original documents of title deeds pertains to site property i.e.,

1. Copy of the original sale deed
2. Copy of the original agreement
3. Copy of the Form No-3
4. Copy of the Form No.2
5. Copy of the original Encumbrance certificate (EC)
6. Copy of the original layout approval plan.
7. Copy of the original salary certificate.
8. Copy of the Form No.16.
9. Copy of the original income tax return (5 years)

Ex.C5/copy of the Most Important Terms and Conditions (MITC) produced by the complainant establishes that the OP has considered the site property of the complainant as mortgage for the housing loan.   Column No.3(a) of the Ex.C5 clearly reflects as

and column 8/ Details of the property of Ex.C4/ copy of SCHEDULE (Loan Agreement) reflecting the same property details. Hence, comparing to Ex.C4 and C5 it is clear that OP has mortgaged the purchased property of the complainant as a security for the loan. Further complainant argued that, though the several approaches, OP has not returned the original documents pertaining to purchased property, which were collected by the OP in the time of sanctioning the said loan. The Ex.C1/ copy of the request letter to OP dated, 5-4-2022, Ex.C8 and Ex.C9 copies of the e-mail transactions establishes’ that the complainant has approached the OP for several time for returning of the original documents. Further complainant has argued that, though the request letter sent to OP on 5-4-2022, OP has not issued the NOC pertaining to loan vide No.4114001584. Ex.C1/copy of the request letter dated 5-4-2022 proves that, the complainant has requested to OP for issuance of NOC regarding said loan.

9.       The counsel for OP has argued that, the complainant has not deposited any alleged original deeds and documents with the OP, in respect of loan transaction. Every housing finance companies or banks sanction the loan after getting the security for loan. But in the present case the OP has not submitted and also failed to show that on the basis of which security/documents they have sanctioned the loan to the complainant.  If OP failed to obtain the documents at the time of sanctioning/registration of the loan, what steps they have taken to collect the documents.  But the OP has remained silent in this regard and not submitted any copies of reminders issued to the complainant in this regard.  Per contrary the Ex.C5 reflecting that OP has kept the purchased property as a security to the loan as submitted by the complainant. Further, counsel for the OP has argued that OP surely issued an endorsement as list of original documents to its customer in respect of loan transaction, when the complainant have not deposited the original deeds and documents, then does not arose about return of original documents and further counsel for the OP has argued that even though the OP has asked to the complainant for producing endorsement of list of original documents deposited in the time of sanctioning loan, the complainant has not produced the same.  Further, counsel for the OP has argued that when the complainant has not produced the endorsement regarding original documents, it is considered as complainant has not deposited the original documents with the OP.  Though the complainant has not produced the endorsement about list of original documents deposited in the time of sanction of loan, it is the duty of the OP to examine of record maintained by the OP about loan and OP has not sent any reminder notice to the complainant for producing the documents for the security of the said loan.  This act of the OP shows that, complainant submitted some documents for the security of the loan and in turn the OP failed to issue acknowledgment/endorsement for the original documents.  The OP has failed to produced copy of any record maintained by the OP to show that, which documents they have collected for the security for the loan. Further OP has not submitted any point regarding the NOC pertaining to loan vide No.4114001584. The OP has not issued any notice to the complainant for remaining balance or due amount of loan. Hence, it is considered as the loan was cleared by the complainant. When the loan was cleared, it is the duty of the OP to issue the NOC to its customer/complainant, which was not done by the OP, though the requests made by the complainant. Though the complainant issued Ex.C6/ copy of legal notice, the OP has not returned the original documents of the complainant which were collected by the OP in the time of sanctioning the loan and not issued the NOC for the said loan, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence, OP’s liable to return the original documents collected by the complainant in the time of sanctioning the loan vide no.4114001584 and OP has also liable to issue NOC regarding loan vide No.4114001584 pertaining to the complainant.

10.     The complainant has prays for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards delaying in furnishing the original documents and NOC to the complainant and for mental agony. But it is on the higher side and the complainant has not produced any document to show that, he has entitled for sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as a compensation. But column no.8 (III) of Ex.C5 produced by the complainant explains as “Return of original documents on closure/transfer of the loan-within 30 days from the date of receipt of request letter from the borrower subject to clearance of fund”.  As per the above terms and conditions the OP has not returned the original documents till the date, though the complainant sent a request letter on 5-4-2022 and compelled the complainant to approach this Commission. Hence the OP has liable to pay the Rs.20,000/- as compensation and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant. Accordingly we pass the following.

:O R D E R:

The complaint filed by complainant is allowed in part with cost.

It is directed that the OP shall return the original documents of the complainant with regard to loan No.4114001584 and to issue NOC pertaining to the said loan with compensation of Rs.20,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.

It is further directed that OP shall comply the above order within 45 days from the date of receipt/knowledge of this order.

Furnish copy of this order to both parties at free of cost.

(