Date of Filing : 20 January, 2021.
Date of Judgement: 07 July, 2023.
Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Dey, Hon’ble Member.
This case arises when the complainant, Mr. Murali Mohan Rao Rojukurti, filed a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, herein after called the said Act, against (1) the Branch Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd. and (2) the ICICI Bank Ltd, hereinafter called the Opposite Parties or OPs, alleging deficiency in service occurred from the part of the Opposite Parties.
The brief statement of the complaint is that the Complainant had taken a Housing Loan from the OPs to purchase a Flat bearing No. 205 in 2nd floor in Shree Apartment, Plot No. – 2, House No.–4- 76/1/17/205, 845 sq. ft. 76/1, in Survey No. 24 & 29 at premises No. 15-77/B in Plot No. 77/B, at Durgapur Colony, Gaddiannaram Village & Municipality, Saroornagar Mondal Ranga Reddy district and the said property was registered in his favour with one Rao Rojukurthi Vidya Lakshmi by way of a registered Sale Deed No. 4035/2005, Volume No. 9, year 2005 (Sl No. 9066). The complainant, together with that person jointly applied for that loan bearing A/C. No. LBHYD00001117309 and the said loan of Rs.6,26,000/- was duly sanctioned keeping the said registered Sale Deed as security by the OPs. It is stated in the complaint petition that the complainant duly paid all the EMIs regularly and got the loan fully repaid by him within November 2019. Thereafter he requested the OPs to return back the Sale Deed which was kept by the OPs as security, but the OPs did not return the same despite his repeated requests, though they demanded relevant indemnity bond yet they had no replies. He sent a letter by registered post to the OP – 1 on 05/12/2020 reminding the OP that he had fully paid the loan and necessary clearance had been given to him but the Sale Deed was not handed over to him. He requested the OP-1 through this letter to return his Sale Deed but they did not comply with his request. He then sent a legal notice through is advocate on 22/12/2020 requesting to hand over the mortgaged Sale Deed but this time also no fruitful result outcome. Ultimately he filed this instant complaint before this Commission praying to direct the OPs: (i) to return back the Sale Deed to him, (ii) to pay Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation and (iii) to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as litigation cost together with other order(s) as this Commission may deem fit and proper.
Complainant filed copies of (i) AADHAAR Card (Illegible), (ii) statement of loan account from 11/8/2005 to 15/11/2019 and (iii) letters issued by the complainant and his advocate dated 05/12/2020 & 22/12/2020 respectively.
This Commission served notices, after admission, to the OPs to appear and contest the case. OPs appeared through their Ld. Advocate and submitted their written version. Consequently Complainant filed his Affidavit-In-Chief. OPs then filed questionnaire and subsequently complainant filed his reply. Thereafter OPs prayed to treat their written version as their evidence. Complainant then filed his questionnaire and reply was filed by the OPs. Ultimately argument was heard. Both the Complainant and OPs filed their respective Brief Notes/Written Notes of Arguments. We are now in the juncture to deliver the Final Order in this case. We have to decide whether the OPs/Bank are deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant for which he is entitled to get relief as prayed for.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Before entering into discussion on the complaint we are going through some defects as noticed in the complaint petition and its annexure. We noticed that in the Cause Title and in the ‘Verification’ portion of the complaint it is written as ROJUKURTI, whereas in the ‘Affidavit’ and also in the statement of account issued by the OPs/Bank it is written as ROJUKURTHI, while in the letter dated 05/12/2020 & 22/12/2020 it is written as RAJUKURTHI. In the complaint the name of the ‘person’/joint holder of the registered Sale Deed is written as RAO ROJUKURTHI VIDYA LAKSHMI and in the Affidavit-In-Chief of the complainant this name is written as RAO ROJUKURTHI VIJAYALAKSHMI, whereas in the bank statement it is written as: Co-Applicant Name: VIJAYA LAKSHMI R., and in the written version of the OPs it is written as Smt. ROJUKURTHI VIJAYALAKSHMI. As the copy of the Aadhaar Card of the complainant is illegible the correct spelling of the name of the complainant could not be verified. Besides the addresses of the OPs are given but the branch name has not been provided, also from which branch he had taken the loan has not been mentioned.
Now let us begin our discussion in this case. According to the statement of the complaint, complainant had taken a housing loan from the OP, from which OP it is not mentioned, in order to purchase a flat being No. 205 at Durgapur Colony, Saroornagar, Mondal Ranga Reddy District and this property was registered in his favour (together) with one Rao Vidya Lakshmi (Rao Rojukurthi Vijayalakshmi according to the Affidavit-in-chief of the complainant). Loan was sanctioned on 11/08/2005 by taking the Sale Deed of this flat as security/mortgage by the Bank, sanctioned amount was Rs.6,26,000/- and this loan has been fully paid by him in November 2019 through EMIs pre-mature closure. He then requested the OPs to return back the mortgaged Sale Deed, but the OPs denied his request. The OPs then asked him to submit relevant indemnity bond but then also they did not hand over the mortgaged Deed. His two letters also have not brought any fruitful result for which he filed this complaint.
We now scrutinize the statement of account issued by the OP/Bank which is annexed with the complaint petition. We see from the Loan Account Statement for the Loan Account LBHYD00001117309 for the period from 11/08/2005 to 15/11/2019. There we see that this is a Home Loan sanctioned on 11/08/2005, sanctioned and disbursed amount is Rs.6,26,000/- Application No. 7774994328, Co-Applicant: Vijaya Lakshmi R, this sanctioned amount was disbursed on 19/08/2005. Status of the Loan has been written as CLOSED as on 15/11/2019. We have noted that the Branch name is written as Hyderabad in this statement, which implies that the complainant had taken this Home Loan from Hyderabad branch of ICICI Bank/OPs. We have failed to find any reason why the Behala Branch of the OP/Bank has been inducted in the Cause Title as the complainant has not stated anything about this matter.
Now, let us take the OPs written version. From this written version only we first notice that the complainant had taken this loan from the OP/Bank in the capacity of being the applicant and one Smt. Rojukurthi Vijayalakshmi in the capacity of being the co-applicant, and it is stated in the statement of account also. Complainant has never mentioned this fact both in his complaint and Affidavit-in-chief. So, according to the OPs, it was the duty of both the applicants to apply jointly or to appear before the branch to get back the mortgaged Sale Deed after clearance of the loan. But only the complainant alone requested to return the Deed which the OP denied to comply with. They asked him to apply jointly to get back the Deed. Instead, complainant submitted a General Power of Attorney, dated 15/02/2019, alleged to have been issued by the said Smt. Rojukurthi Vijayalakshmi, which was found to be defective due to mis-match of the signature of the said co-applicant for which the OP/Bank requested the complainant through a letter dated 04/02/2020 to submit the details of whereabouts of the said Smt. Rojukurthi Vijayalakshmi. But the complainant did not submit the details, instead he sent letters dated 05/12/2020 & 22/12/2020 requesting to hand over the Deed to him. But the OP/Bank did not hand over the said Deed in accordance with the terms and condition of the loan and also following the banking rules and regulations. OPs raised a question in this written version that the complainant has not impleaded Smt. Rojukurthi Vijayalakshmi as a necessary party in this complaint, so why not the complaint be dismissed?
In the questionnaire the OPs’ first question is about the complainants’ educational qualification on the ground that, if educated then he must understood the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. The complainant has not answered this question. OPs’ Q. No. 6 is whether they has issued a letter to the complainant on 04/02/2020 requesting the whereabouts of the co-applicant. Complainant’s answer is that this question is “false and the same cannot be any legal consent ground for refusal to return back the Title Deed”. Similar indirect answers are given by the complainant while answering the questionnaire of the OPs containing 15 questions. On the other hand, the OPs has given specific answers to each and every question of the complainant containing 19 questions. Complainant’s Q. No. 11 is: “Is the OPs having any right or authority to adjudicate about custody of any documents or instruments of borrower for security?” OPs’ answer is: “Yes, the OPs has the absolute authority to hold onto the documents of security provided for the availed loan about the custody of any documents or instruments borrower for security as these documents were provided as the mortgage for the said loan. The said documents can only be released when the complainant follows the instructions to undertake the diligences and verifications. ,,,,,,,, ” In Q. No. 18 complainant asks whether there was any latches from his part or if he was guilty in availing the said loan and its full and final repayment, if not, why he could not claim his own documents taken as security after repayment. OPs’ answer to this question is there were no latches from the part of the complainant nor he was guilty in availing the loan. In order to get back the documents, the complainant and Smt. Rojukurthi Vijayalakshmi had to get them together. Instead the complainant submitted the Power of Attorney which was found to be defective due to mis-match of the signature of Smt. Rojukurthi Vijayalakshmi. It is to be noted that the OPs did not file any copy of the their letter dated 04/02/2020 and the said power of attorney, nor they have filed a copy of the loan application said to be applied by the Complainant as applicant and Smt. Rojukurthi Vijayalakshmi as the co-applicant.
So, considering all the fact and findings as discussed above we are of the view that the complainant has not appeared before this Commission in clean hands. He has suppressed some important facts which definitely played vital role in this complainant. Complainant suppressed the fact that he applied for the loan as the applicant and Smt. Rojukurthi Vijayalakshmi as co-applicant. So, Smt. Rojukurthi Vijayalakshmi has a prime and necessary role in this loan process, in absence of her the documents cannot be got back from the OPs/Bank. She should be included in this complaint. Non-jointer of necessary part frustrates a complaint. Besides, according to the OPs, if the complainant applied for getting back the documents together with Smt. Rojukurthi Vijayalakshmi after closure of the loan account, then they would get back the document and this case will not arise. We thus cannot find any deficiency in service from the part of the OPs and the complainant has no entitlement to get relief through this Commission. We have seen that the Hon’ble National Commission held in Revision Petition No. 2611 of 2013, (B. L. Malviya -Vs- A. Zohari, AM, SBI) [2018 (3) CPR 313 (NC] that: “ …. no deficiency can be alleged against opposite party on a wrongful act of complainant himself.” Here, in this case the complainant himself acted wrongfully. Finally we are of the view that the present complaint petition is liable to be dismissed for want of merit. Complainant must approach before the OPs/Bank as per their banking norms to get back the desired Sale Deed/Title Deed.
Hence,
it is
ORDERED
That the Complaint Case No. CC/43/2021 is dismissed on contest for devoid of any merit and with no cost.
