STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                        UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

Indu Sethi wd/o Subash Sethi r/o H.No.399, Sector 44-A, Chandigarh.

….…Appellant/Complainant

V E R S U S

Housing Development Financial Corporation Bank, Plot No.28, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh.

.…..Respondent/Opposite Party  

BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU,                    MEMBER

Argued by:   

Sh.H.P.S.Kochhar, Advocate for the appellant.

                                        ---

MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

                This appeal is directed against the order dated 26.11.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant (now appellant).  

2.                    In brief, the facts of the case are that the complainant alongwith her husband Mr.Subash Sethi and son took a home loan, having account No.91844171 of Rs.1,28,00,000/- from the Opposite Party by depositing the original title deed of House No.2134, Sector 21-C, Chandigarh, which was in her name and in the name of her husband. The husband of the complainant also took a personal loan having account No.91626663 in his name only without surety/guarantee. The husband of the complainant passed away in January, 2010. The complainant initially paid some EMI’s of the home loan. Thereafter, she was unable to sustain herself and continue the business profitably left by her husband and sold the property in which she carried the same. She paid back the total amount of the home loan vide receipts bearing No.23964082 (wrongly mentioned in the complaint as 23964081) & 23964081 both dated 6.7.2011, copies of which are Annexure C-1 and C-2. It was further stated that after the demise of her husband, the complainant continued to pay erroneously the EMI’s of the personal loan @Rs.18,283/- from 23.2.2010 to 27.7.2010 i.e. seven installments totaling Rs.1,27,981/- and photocopies of the receipts are Annexure C-3 to C-9. It was further stated that after the satisfaction of home loan, the complainant requested the Opposite Party to return the original title deed/papers of the house, bearing No.2134, Sector 21-C, Chandigarh kept by it, as security, for the same but it refused to return the same saying it would not release the same till the satisfaction of the personal loan taken by her husband. The complainant while giving the whole background of the case made a request vide email – Annexure C-10 to the Manager Customer Service, which was replied vide an email. The Opposite Party, however, refused to return the original title deed/ papers of the house till the amount of personal loan was satisfied.  It was further stated that the Opposite Party was deficient, in rendering service, as also, indulged into unfair trade practice.  When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the “Act” only), was filed.

3.                    In its written reply, the Opposite Party, took up the objection that the complaint was not maintainable. It was admitted that home loan was availed of by Mr.Subhash Sethi. It was stated that Mr.Subhash Sethi had also availed of personal loan to the tune of Rs.7,20,000/- and copy of the statement of accounts in respect of the said loan is Annexure R-2. It was admitted that Mr.Subhash Sethi expired in January, 2010 and, thereafter, the complainant adjusted the housing loan which was reflected in the statement of account. It was further stated that the complainant inherited the assets of Late Mr.Subhash Sethi.  Therefore, she was liable to discharge his liabilities also i.e. to pay the outstanding amount, in his loan account. It was denied that the personal loan without any guarantee or surety lapses on the death of the borrower. It was further stated that as per law, legal heirs of the deceased borrower remain liable to pay to the creditor to the extent they have inherited the estate of the borrower. It was further stated that the bank correctly recovered the EMIs and is still entitled to recover dues alongwith interest thereon and also further interest till the final realization of the amount by it. It was further stated that since the complainant is still liable to pay the outstanding dues in the personal loan account, she could not claim back the original title deed/papers kept as security for home loan. It was further stated that the bank retained the said title deeds claiming its general lien on the documents, till satisfaction of the personal loan.  It was further stated that, the Opposite Party was neither deficient, in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice.

4.                    The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5.                    After hearing the Counsel for the parties and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint. 

6.                    Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

7.                    We have heard the Counsel for the appellant/complainant, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

8.                    The Counsel for the appellant/complainant  submitted that the complainant alongwith her husband and son took a home loan from the Opposite Party by depositing original title deed of H.No.2134, Sector 21-C, Chandigarh. He further submitted that the husband of the complainant also took a personal loan without any surety and guarantee. The husband of the complainant passed away in January, 2010. Thereafter on 6.7.2011 the complainant paid back the entire home loan and requested the Opposite Party to return the original title deed/papers of the house, kept by it, as security for the said home loan but it refused to return the same, on the plea, that the same would not be released till the payment of personal loan taken by her husband was paid.  He further submitted that the personal loan without any guarantee and surety lapsed on the death of the borrower and so the complainant was not liable to pay the loan amount, if any due, on account of the aforesaid loan.  He further submitted that, thus, the Opposite Party wrongly withheld the original title deed/papers of the house aforesaid, kept as security for the home loan, which stood cleared and, the Bank had no locus standi to withhold the same as the same were not kept as security for the personal loan account.  He further submitted that the Opposite Party was deficient, in rendering service, and indulged into unfair trade practice. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the judgments –Kewal Krishan and Another Vs. Allahabad bank-2006 (1) CPC-731 and SBI Vs. Ananda Mohan Saha-(1999) CPJ-13 (NC) and asserted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside.

9.                    The complainant has failed to bring, on record, any provision of law, under which the personal loan without any surety and guarantee would lapse on the death of the borrower. It is settled proposition of law, that, whosoever, inherited the assets of the deceased, is liable to discharge the liabilities out of the estate inherited by him/her. It was, thus, the duty of the complainant, who inherited the assets of her deceased-husband to make payment of the personal loan  taken by the deceased with interest, if any, out of the assets left by the deceased-husband. Since the amount of the personal loan has not been paid/satisfied so far, therefore, the Bank has every right to retain the original title deed/papers, which the complainant alongwith her husband deposited by way of security in respect of the home loan account, despite the fact the same was cleared by her, till the realization of the personal loan taken by her deceased-husband. The facts of the judgments aforesaid, are distinguishable, from the facts of the instant case, and, as such, no help can be drawn, from the ratio of law, laid down therein, by the Counsel for the complainant.  In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based, on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

10.                 For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.

11.                 Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

12.                 The file be consigned to Record Room, after compliance.

Pronounced.                                                                                      Sd/-

01.02.2013                               [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER[RETD.]

                                                                                 PRESIDENT         

Sd/-

                                                                             [NEENA SANDHU]

                                                                                                MEMBER