Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/44/2013

Yedida Swarnalatha W/o.N.Israil ,Retd.Head Nurse - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager ,ICICI Bank Limited - Opp.Party(s)

G.Ramaiah Pillai

20 Feb 2014

ORDER

                  Date of filing:05.08.2013

                                                                                                      Date of Disposal:20.02.2014

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, TIRUPATI.

 

PRESENT:Sri.M.Anand, President (FAC)

      Smt.T.Anitha, Member

                                  

THURSDAY THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN

 

C.C.No.44/2013

 

Between

 

Yedida Swarnalaha,

W/o. N.Israil,

Flat No.505, 5^th Floor, Amrutha Block,

Narayana Vihar Delux,

Nehru Nagar,

Tirupati,

Chittoor District.                                                            …..Complainant.

 

And

 

Branch Manager,

ICICI Bank Limited,

ICICI Home Finance,

10-25, M9-91, Ground Floor,

Opp. Krishna Commercial Complex,

Tilak Road,

Tirupati.                                                                        …..Opposite party.

 

          This complaint coming  before us for final hearing on 03.02.14 and upon perusing the complaint and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.G.Ramaiah Pillai, counsel for the complainant and Sri.G.Rajesh Babu, counsel for the opposite party, and having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following:-

 

ORDER

DELIVERED BY T.ANITHA, MEMBER

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

          This complaint is filed under Section-12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, complaining deficiency of service on part of the opposite party, for not returning the documents pledged and in not issuing the NOC though the complainant discharged entire loan amount.  .

          2.  The brief facts of the case are:-  The complainant availed house loan from the opposite party – bank, under loan agreement No.LBTRU00035021 for Rs.4,00,000/- on 28.01.2003, which is repayable in 121 monthly installments at EMI of Rs.5,471/- by pledging the document covered under sale deed dt:24.02.2003 and the interest is payable on floating  rate commencing from 04.02.2003, which ends by 07.04.2013. After discharge of the loan, the complainant approached the opposite party to release the  document but surprisingly the complainant received the statement of account from the opposite party dated 03.05.13 mentioning  that the complainant is due of  Rs.31,094/- as overdue charges and they have not mentioned any details for the said amount. Hence, the complainant sent a legal notice on 04.06.2013 requesting the opposite party to release the document, which was pledged as security for loan and issue the NOC as he discharged the entire loan amount including principal and interest, totaling Rs.6,61,991/-  and also the complainant caused 2^nd legal notice on 26.06.2013 and same was returned and again a copy of 2^nd legal notice was sent through courier on 17.07.2013 and the same was delivered on 18.07.2013. After receiving the said notice also, the opposite party never returned the same. Hence, the complainant filed this complaint praying this Hon’ble Forum to direct the opposite party to return the sale deed under hypothecation along with NOC and also compensation of Rs.50,000 /for causing mental agony and with costs of Rs.2,000/-.

          3.  The opposite party came on record and filed the written version by admitting the loan of the complainant and also stated that on 02.02.2003 the complainant deposited the sale deed as security for his loan and also stated that the said EMI’s are fixed at 122 installments instead of 121 installments as stated by the complainant and the opposite party contended that the complainant was a chronic defaulter in payment of EMI’s  till the completion of the loan, and also the complainant failed to honour the cheques, except some cheques the remaining cheques were not honoured. Hence, they levied over-due charges and cheque bouncing charges to the complainant and he never paid any overdue charges or cheque bouncing charges in any occasion as he paid only EMI amount and the complainant has to still  pay Rs.31,094/-, and the payable amount is not paid which is mentioned in the statement of account issued by them. Hence, there is no deficiency of service on part of them the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          4.  The complainant filed evidence affidavit and marked the exhibits Exs.A1 to A7. One Mr.B.Jayakumar, Debit Manager, Authorised POA (Power of Attorney) holder, who represents the opposite party filed the evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.B1 to B4.

          5.  Now the points for consideration are:-

          (i).  Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?

          (ii).  Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?

          (iii).  To what relief?

          6.  Point Nos.(i) and (ii):-  The complainant stated that as per the loan agreement, he paid the entire loan amount in 121 installments but the opposite party contended that the entire loan period was 122 installments. As per Ex.A2 statement of account clearly indicates that the total EMI’s will be fixed for 121 installments, which was issued by opposite party dt:03.05.2013 and hence he paid Rs.6,61,991/- for which the principal is Rs.4,01,595/- and interest Rs.2,60,396/- was paid by the complainant. As per the contention of the opposite party, the complainant is still due to pay the over due charges for a tune of Rs.31,094/-, for that the complainant pointed out that the opposite  party was not served any demand notices for the delay payment charges. In the entire loan period, they simply received the EMI’s without demanding the outstanding dues, the reasons best known to the opposite party why they kept silent for the entire period of loan, if they intimated the same to the complainant, he might have taken steps to pay the outstanding charges. Hence, the opposite party failed to intimate the same. However, the opposite party could not place any terms and conditions how they calculated the delay payment charges and how they arrived the figure Rs.31,094/-, no record is placed due to that effect. Hence, demand notice should be given to the complainant whenever he fall due to pay the EMI’s but in this case he failed to do so, which caused great inconvenience to the complainant. If the same was intimated to him, he might have paid the same and avoid unnecessary litigation.

          7.  Now coming to the ‘overdue charges’ levied by the opposite party it is no doubt that the complainant delayed in payment of some installments for which the opposite party levied over-due charges and delay payment charges but the charges levied by them are exorbitant and also the opposite party fails to convince the Court on what rate they have calculated delay payment charges and arrived the figure of Rs.31,094/-, which was not mentioned anywhere in the agreement about the rate of delay payment charges to that effect and hence it is pertinent to say that the said amount will be reduced to Rs.10,000/-. In the above circumstances, this Forum holds that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.

          8.  Point No.(iii):- In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to return the sale deed dt:24.02.2003, which was hypothecated before the opposite party at the time of taking loan and to issue NOC to the complainant. The complainant is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousands only) to the opposite party for the over-due charges. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs. The order shall be complied within 15 days from the date of the order.         

       Typed by the stenographer, to the dictation and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum this the 20^th day of February, 2014. 

      Sd/-                                                                                             Sd/-               

Lady Member                                                                          President (FAC).

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED ON BOTH SIDES

 

PW-1: Y.Swarnalaha (Evidence Affidavit filed.).

RW-1: B.Jayakumar (Evidence Affidavit filed.).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/S

 

Exhibits	Date	Description of Documents
Ex.A1	11.02.2003	ICICI Home Finance letter on the application for housing loan by the Complainant.
2	03.05.2013	Copy of generated loan account statement commencing from 28.01.2003 to 03.05.2013 issued by the ICICI Bank, Tirupati.
3	04.06.2013	Office copy of  Legal Notice with a request to return the original sale deed under hypothecation under the loan account along with No due certificate.
4	26.06.2013	2nd Legal Notice to the Opposite Party to expedite the release of pledged document.
5.	27.06.2013	Returned undelivered registered letter to the Opposite Party.
6	17.07.2013	Copy of 2nd Legal Notice dt:26.06.2013 sent by DTDC courier to the Opposite Party with endowement delivered on 18.07.2013.
7	24.02.2003	Copy of sale deed for house flat No.1, Amrutha Block in Narayana Vihar Delux Apartment, Tirupati.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/S

 

Exhibits	Date	Description of Documents
Ex.B1		True copy of loan agreement.
2		Repayment schedule of loan account.
3		Statement of account of Complainant.
4		Letter executed by Complainant agreeing for floating rate of interest.

 

                                                                                               

                                                                                                                                 Sd/-       

President (FAC)

// TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

                                                                                    Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati. 

 

Copies to:

 

1.  The complainant.
2. The opposite party.