Date of Filing: 05-11-2018
Date of Order:12 -3-2020
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – I, HYDERABAD
P r e s e n t
HON’BLE Sri P.VIJENDER, B.Sc. L.L.B., PRESIDENT
HON’BLE Sri K.RAM MOHAN, B.Sc. M.A L.L.B., MALE MEMBER
HON’BLE Smt. CH. LAKSHMI PRASANNA, B.Sc. LLM.,(PGD (ADR) LADY MEMBER
Thursday, the 12th day of March, 2020
C.C.No.431 /2018
Between
Ms. A.Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o.J.Mohan Reddy,
Aged about 55 years, Occ: Govt Service,
R/o.H.No.16-11-220/D/29,
Friends Colony, Moosaram Bagh,
Hyderabad – 500 036 ……Complainant
And
- The Tata Capital Housing Financial Ltd represented by its Manager,
Road No.3, Tata Plaza,
Opp: Times of India, Hyderabad – 500 034
- The Tata Capital Housing Financial Ltd represented by its Managing Director,I-Think Techno Campus,
A Wing, 4th floor off Pokran Road No.2,
THANE West – 400 607, India ….Opposite Parties
Counsel for the complainant : Mr. M.R. Harsha & Mr. K.Yadagiri Reddy
Counsel for the opposite Parties : Mr. Lanka Jagannadham
O R D E R
(By Sri P. Vijender, B.Sc., LL.B., President on behalf of the bench)
This complaint is preferred under Section 12 of C.P. Act 1986 alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties institution.
- The complainant’s case in brief is that with an intent to purchase a flat at Kranti Shikhara Apartments, Panjagutta, he submitted a loan application form with the opposite party on 16-07-2018 for loan amount of Rs.25,00,000/-. The flat intended to purchase by the complainant is 20 years old one. Opposite party No.1 sanctioned a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- @ interest of 16.65% current (TCHFLRPLR) WITH 8.65% (variable) payable in 84 installments and sent a sanctioned letter to the complainant . Complainant paid a sum of Rs.23,150/- towards advance and Rs.10,000/- towards memorandum of deposit of title deeds as claimed by the opposite party.
On 4/8/2018 opposite party No.1 sent SMS to the complainant informing that Rs.97,207/- has been disbursed towards loan account No.10393769 and another SMS stating that Rs.20,00,000/- towards home loan has been processed and had shown cheque No. 361448 dated 6/08/2018 and its particulars were also sent on WhatsApp for the loan sanction amount drawn infavour of vendor Mr. Madhava Reddy . On 6/8/2018 opposite party sent a another SMS confirming disbursement of Rs.4,00,000/- for home loan account of complainant and particulars of cheque No.361450 dated 6/8/2018 favoring the complainant drawn on Punjab National Bank account No.1510 dated 4/8/2018 by cheque No.361450 drawn from HDFC Bank, THANE. Another SMS was sent scheduling the EMIs of Rs.27,960/- as due on 5/9/2018 and to keep sufficient balance in the account.
The complainant and her vendor fixed the date for registration of the sale deed for flat on 14-8-2018 in view of the commitment made by the opposite parties for sanction of the loan. The complainant purchased stamp paper on 10-8-2018 got drafted the sale deed through her counsel by paying requisite fee. She made request with the vendor Mr. Madhava Reddy to be ready for registration before SRO Panjagutta and she also kept ready a banker cheque for Rs.3,000/- infavour of GHMC and prepare a challan for encashment. On the date fixed for the registration no one turn up from the opposite party side as promised and scheduled though the complainant, her husband and the vendor of the flat waited there till 5.P.M. Several calls were made by the complainant and her husband for the opposite parties but they were not answered. With great difficulty she requested the vendor and got fixed for a second date on 18-8-2018 for registration. But on the said date also no one from the opposite party turned up and complainant, her husband and vendor of the flat waited till 5.PM at S.R.O office , Panjagutta. Then the vendor of the flat has withdrawn from the offer for sale of the flat in view of breach and default. The acts of the opposite parties in accepting money and promise to sanction of loan withdrawing from it amounts to unfair trade practice and negligence. The fact of sending cheque for Rs.20,00,000/- & Rs.4,00,000/- confirms the obligation of the contract but not adhering to it amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties also collected nine (9) blank cheques signed by the complainant and infact one of the said blank cheque bearing No.508380 for Rs.27,960/- was presented for encashment but it was dis honoured on 5/9/2018 debiting Rs.354/- towards bounced charges as the complainant earlier sent a letter to the bank on 28/8/2018 to stop the payment since no amount was released towards loan. The complainant spent various amounts totaling Rs.1,59,432/- in the process of securing loan from the opposite parties and opposite parties are liable to reimburse the same. The opposite parties by not turning up for registration and disbursement of loan having agreed to sanction caused mental agony to the complainant. Hence liable to pay a compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- and a further sum of Rs.10,000/-towards costs of this complaint. Hence the present complaint.
- Opposite party No.1 filed written version and is adopted by opposite party No.2 and the material facts narrated in the complaint are denied therein. The stand of the opposite parties is that the complainant suppressed the material facts as he did not inform to opposite party No.1 that one of the original sale deed was lost with the proposed vendor. Deposit of title deeds for mortgage link documents are important to create charge over the property. When opposite party No.1 carried out a scrutiny report through its panel advocate got confirmed that one of the documents from the chain was missing and panel advocate advised to follow the procedure for loss of document. Complainant agreed and rescheduled to registration on 18-8-2018 and during this time the formalities of publication and police complaint was carried out. However the complainant for the reasons best known to her and her vendor did not enter into transaction and she requested for cancellation of transaction.
In response to the complainant request for sanction of housing loan same was sanctioned by opposite party No.1 and complainant paid a sum of Rs.5,900/- towards processing fee which is non-refundable. Complainant did not pay Rs.17,250/- as stated by him. Opposite party No.1 informed the complainant about the sanction of loan by furnishing the details of cheque prepared for disbursement as it was always willing to extend the loan facility to the complainant after execution of the sale deed. Opposite party No.1 released a sum of Rs.97,207/- to the complainant on 31-7-2018 as part of disbursal of the sanctioned loan amount. The complainant without disclosing the information in relating to the loss of one original sale deed which is link document of the property made preparation for registration of sale deed. The expenditure incurred by the complainant for registration process by fulfilling payment to the concerned authorities with which opposite party No.1 has no concern. The complainant as a borrower at the time of registration of the sale deed has to prepare the sale deed by producing the documents verified by the opposite party. The opposite party for the scrutiny entrusted the registration work to their panel advocate for cross verification of the draft sale deed with documents for presenting before the Sub-registrar. Normally the panel advocate of opposite party will bring the cheque to delivery to the vendor of the borrower after receiving the original and other relevant documents from the vendor. The Panel advocate will also verify the sale deed before the delivery of the consideration cheques to the borrowers vendor and will collect original link and other documents when he will deliver the same . In the instant case one Mr. Veeranjaneyulu –Relationship Mnager of opposite party No.1 attended sub-registarar office with the empanelled advocate of opposite party No.1 for registration of sale deed infavour of the complainant but registration of sale deed could not be completed because the complainant and her vendor did not disclose about the loss of one original sale deed of the property. At the time of sanction of loan the complainant and her vendor provided the copies of all the documents for scrutiny, and promised to handover the originals at the time of registration. But the complainant and her vendor have informed the loss of original sale deed only at the time of registration when opposite party No.1 panel advocate insisted to hand over original sale deeds. The cancellation of housing loan sanctioned by opposite party No.1 is only on account of complainant’s own wrong by not disclosing of loss one of the link document of the opposite party. The complainant delivered the cheques in terms of the condition of sanctioned loan as scrutiny after the cancellation of housing loan cheques were returned to the complainant. There was no negligence or unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complainant is not entitled for any reliefs in the present complaint and same is liable to be dismissed.
In the enquiry complainant got filed her evidence affidavit reiterating the material facts of the complaint and to support the same exhibited Twenty (20) documents. For the Opposite Parties evidence affidavit of its credit manager – Home loans and that of Mr.Veeranjaneyulu Ikkurthi stated to be relationship Manager of opposite party No.1 is got filed and through him two (2) documents are exhibited on their behalf. Written arguments are filed for both sides.
On a consideration of material available on the record the following points have emerged for consideration .
- Whether the cancellation of the housing loan sanctioned to the complainant before the registration of the sale deed by the opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice or deficiency of service ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the amounts claimed in the complaint?
- To what relief?
Point No.1: The approach of the complainant with a loan application before opposite party No.1 Institution for sanction of housing loan of Rs.24,00,000/- for the purchase of 20 years old flat and sanction of loan of Rs.20,00,000/- by opposite party No.1 are admitted facts. In the written version as well as evidence affidavit filed for opposite parties there is an admission that on 14-8-2018 complainant and vendor of the flat who offered to sell it to the complainant have arrived at sub-registrar office for registration of the subject flat. Though the complainant has not disclosed the fact of loss of one of the original link sale deed of the subject flat the documents under Ex.A19 and A20 which are paper publication and police complaint fortifies the version of opposite parties that one of the original sale deed which forming a part of chain of link document was lost with the vendor. As rightly pointed out to create a mortgage over and immovable property the original title deeds of property and its link documents ought to be deposited with the institution for sanction of the loan. Every financial institution before sanction of loan will obtain opinion of it’s a legal person whether loan can be sanctioned or not. Similarly in the present case also opposite party No.1 has panel advocate Ramratan reddy submitted his opinion under Ex.B2 to opposite party No.1 on 30-7-2018 advising the opposite party No.1 to collect four original registered sale deeds which are link documents and Encumbrance certificate in original for creation of change over the subject property by way of mortgage.
Basing on the legal scrutiny of Ex.B2 it appears the complainant was advised to go for a paper publication and police complaint reporting loss of one of the original sale deeds. As evidenced by Ex.A20 receipt a complaint was lodged by Mr. D. Madhava Reddy with Langerhouse police station on 27-7-2018 but neither copy of the complaint nor FIR registered under the said complaint is filed. However the fact remains the vendor of the flat namely Mr.Madhava Reddy lost one original sale deed which is link document. The evidence affidavit of RW2 Mr. Veeranjaneyulu the relationship Manager of opposite party shows he along with the panel advocate attended sub-registrar office on 14-8-2018 and they carried a draft sale deed, legal opinion copy, loan disbursement amount cheque but complainant and her vendor failed to submit the original documents before the registration then he and panel advocate refused to hand over the sale consideration cheques to the vendor. Then the panel advocate advised the complainant and her vendor to follow the procedure for loss of documents and same was agreed by the complainant and date was rescheduled to 18-8-2018 and during the said time paper publication was carried out but the complainant and her vendor have cancelled the transaction and complainant requested for cancellation of the sanctioned loan. In the light of this evidence affidavit of Veeranjaneyulu the relationship manager of opposite party it is evident that after the making paper publication for lost documents and police complaint the parties to the transaction themselves did not proceed further to complete the process of registration of the sale deed. The complainant in the complaint as well as evidence affidavit stated that on the reschedule date of 18-8-2018 she and her husband and the vendor Mr. Madhava Reddy waited at sub-registrar office till 5.00 PM at S.R.O office , Panjagutta. But no one from the opposite party turned up. In support of this version the complainant has not filed the evidence affidavit of Mr. Madhava Reddy the owner of the flat which she agreed to purchase as independent evidence. In the absence of independent evidence the self serving statement of the complainant alone cannot be taken as sacrosanct. It is evident from the material on the record that the cancellation of the sanctioned loan by the opposite party was at the instance of complainant herself even after following the procedure for loss of one of the original link documents as advised by the panel advocate of the opposite party. Hence complainant cannot allege either deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Accordingly point is answered.
Point No.2: In view of the above findings it is to follow that the complainant is not entitled for reliefs claimed in the complaint.
Point No.3: In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Dictated to steno, transcribed and typed by her, pronounced by us on this the 12th day of March , 2020.
LADY MEMBER MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Exs. filed on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A1- copy of loan sanction letter
Ex.A2-copy of SMS
Ex.A3-again copy of SMS
Ex.A4-copy of WhatsApp Message with regard to cash management services- payment
Ex.A5- copy of SMS
Ex.A6-Confirmatory Loan details & payment schedule
Ex.A7-SMS of scheduling the EMI’s
Ex.A8-Unregistered sale deed
Ex.A9- copy of Banker’s cheque in favour of GHMC
Ex.A10-SBI e –pay challan towards the registration charges
Ex.A11-copy of letterdt.28-08-2018
Ex.A12- copy of letter
Ex.A13-copy of pass book
Ex.A14 office copy of legal notice dt.14/09/2018
Ex.A15-DTDC courier receipt
Ex.A16-DTDC courier receipt
Ex.A17- delivery receipt
Ex.A18-delivery receipt
Ex.A19- paper publication
Ex.A20-police complaint
Exs. filed on behalf of the Opposite party
Ex.B1-Home loan sanction letter dt.28-07-2018
Ex.B2- legal scrutiny report dt.30-7-2018
LADY MEMBER MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
