Date of Filing: 15-05-2017
Date of Order:19 -2-2020
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
Wednesday, the 19th day of February, 2020
C.C.No.333 /2017
Between
Gunam Palle Ramasubba Reddy, S/o.Late Papi Reddy,
Aged about 67 years, Occ: Retired Bank Employee,
Residing at Flat No.01, Ground floor, Plot No.61,
Siddhartha Apartments,
Siddhartha Nagar, Hyderabad – 500038
(Cell No.9959308050)
(9849006493). ……Complainant
And
- The Chief Manager,
Union Bank of India,
RP Road Branch,LG-1, 1-2-163, Bhuvana Towers,
P.O.Box 1523, SD Road, Krishna Complex, Kalasiguda,
Secunderabad, Telangana – 500003
- The Deputy General Manager,
Union Bank of India,
Zonal office, No.6-3-664, 2nd floor,
Prestige Rai Towers, Opp. NIMS, Punjagutta,
Hyderabad, Telangana – 500082
- The Chairman & Managing Director,
Union Bank of India, Union Bhavan, 239,
Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point,
Mumbai – 400021 ….Opposite Parties
Counsel for the complainant : Mr. Srinivasa Srikanth
Counsel for the opposite Parties : Mr. M.V.S.Prasad
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 that failure to return the documents collected by opposite parties from the complainant while sanctioning the housing loan even after repayment of entire amount is deficiency of service, hence a direction to the opposite parties to return the documents and pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony by not returning the documents for all these years and further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for negligence and deficiency of service by the opposite parties .
- Complainant’s case in brief is that while working as an employee with the opposite parties bank he availed a staff housing loan facility in the year 1988 for the purchase of Flat No.01, Ground floor, Plot No.61, Siddhartha Apartments, Siddhartha Nagar, Hyderabad. For availing the loan he has furnished original agreement of sale , Original Municipal permission obtained for construction of building and stamped receipts issued by the builder for the payments made by the complainant. Thereafter he retired from service in the month of August, 2010 and the loan was closed by repaying the entire loan amount
The complainant after closure of the loan made a request with the opposite parties for return of the documents collected from him for sanction of loan. Opposite parties No.1 &2 having agreed to return requested the complainant to wait for sometime as documents were not readily available with them. Opposite parties No.1&2 continued to dodge the issue on one pretext or the other. Complainant has been requesting the opposite parties all these days to return the documents and he was informed that the documents were placed in the Regional office or might have been sent to Pune and soon after receipt will be furnished to him. But opposite parties failed to return the documents and it amounts to deficiency of service and gross negligence on their part. The complainant having vexed with the attitude of the opposite parties sent mails on 6-01-2017 and 3-2-2017 asking the opposite parties to return the documents but it was of no use. Hence he got issued a legal notice on 14-4-2017 to the opposite parties calling upon them to return the documents within one week from the date of service of the notice which was delivered to them on 17-04-2017. The opposite parties having received the said notice neither gave a reply nor complied the demand made. Hence the present complaint for the reliefs stated above.
- Opposite party No.1 alone filed written version and same is adopted by opposite party No.2&3 admitting sanction of staff housing loan facility to the complainant while he was in employment with the bank and repayment of the entire loan amount but denied the rest of the complainant’s version. The stand of the opposite parties is that the complainant during his employment with the bank availed Staff housing loan in the year 1998 but he did not deposit any document. The loan account was closed in August, 2010 after adjusting outstanding loan from his retirement benefits. After retirement from the service the complainant did not ask for return the documents. The property was not registered in the name of the complainant and he did not create any equitable mortgage so the question of deposit of documents by the complainant with the bank does not arise. The complainant did not produce an acknowledgment of the bank in proof of depositing of original agreement of sale , original Municipal permission granted for the construction for the building and stamped receipts issued by the builder for payments received from him.
The deposit of original building permission by the complainant with the bank does not arise because he has availed Staff housing loan for the purchase of the flat and not an independent house. In the case of apartment complex, original building permission will be issued to the builder and on completion of the construction of the building the builder will hand over the same to flat owners association. The complainant has over expectations for the reason that the property was not registered in his name and he did not create any equitable mortgage. The bank informed the complainant to submit the acknowledgment of the bank in proof of deposit of original document by him with the bank for sanction of loan but complainant has not produced the same.
The complainant loan account was closed at the time of his retirement in the month of August 2010 the present complaint is filed 7 years after the closure of the loan account on his retirement from service and for all these years there was no demand from the complainant as claimed by him. Hence the complaint is barred by limitation and liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs to the bank.
In the enquiry the complainant got filed his evidence affidavit reiterating the material facts of the complaint and to support the same got exhibited nine (9) documents. For the Opposite Parties evidence affidavit of its Branch Manager is got filed and no document is exhibited on their behalf. Both sides have filed written arguments and made oral submissions.
On a consideration of material brought on the record the following points have emerged for findings:
- Whether the complaint is in limitation?
- Whether the complainant could establish deposit of original documents with the opposite parties bank for the sanction of Staff housing loan in the year 1988?
- Whether the complainant made out a case of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for ?
- To what relief?
Point No.1: The admitted facts brought on the record is the complainant while in service as an employee of the opposite party bank availed staff housing loan facility in the year 1988 for the purchase of the flat and at the time of his retirement in the month of August 2010 the said loan account was closed after adjusting the outstanding loan amount from and out of his retirement benefits.
When the loanee closed the account with the loaner and in case of deposit of documents with the lender the cause of action commence after the closure of the loan account. So in the instant case the cause of action for the complainant to file a consumer complaint against the opposite party bank arose in the month of August, 2010 and he should have filed the complaint within two years from the date of his retirement i.,e, in the month of August 2012 but the present complaint was filed in May 2017 i.,e about 7 years after his retirement. The complainant conveniently pleaded that ever since retirement he has been asking the opposite parties to return the original documents deposited by him and opposite party went on to dodge the issue and finally he got issued a legal notice under Ex.A6 on 14-4-2017. The complainant obtained No Due Certificate under Ex.A9 from the opposite party on 6-7-2017 and as per this certificate the complainant’s Staff housing loan account was closed on 31-8-2010. The complainant has not filed any proof to show that from the date of his retirement to the date of his written request he has been regularly demanding to return the documents. By Ex.A4 on 6-1-2017 he submitted a letter asking the opposite parties to return his original. documents. It is evident from the record that Ex.A4 is the first letter from the complainant to the opposite parties demanding them to return the original documents. Ex.A5 is also a letter dated 3-2-2017 to the opposite parties referring to the earlier letter under Ex.A4 demanding for the return of the documents. If there is acknowledgment from the opposite parties to these letters under Ex.A4 & A5 admitting deposit of original documents by the complainant then the complaint has a say that the present complaint is within the limitation because a fresh cause of action arose on account of acknowledgment from the bank but there is no such acknowledgement from the opposite parties admitting deposit of original documents by the complainant for sanction of loan. What prevented the complainant to wait for more than 7 years to make a demand with the opposite parties for return of original documents is not explained. In the absence of an acknowledgment the complainant cannot claim that the present complaint is within the limitation. Hence the point is answered that the present complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation.
Point No.2: In the light of the defence taken by the opposite parties that the complainant has not deposited any of the documents since the loan sanctioned was under Staff housing loan facility it is incumbent upon the complainant to substantiate his stand of deposit of original documents with the bank. The opposite parties has specifically stated that the complainant was asked to produce the acknowledgment obtained by him from the bank evidencing deposit of original document by him with the bank. For this stand of the opposite parties there is no response from the complainant. The complainant has filed Ex.A1 which is a legal opinion obtained by the Branch Manager of opposite party from his panel advocate for sanction of loan. Ex.A2 is the sanction advise to the complainant from the bank. As per this sanction letter the complainant has to create a security for the loan by deposit of title deeds of the property to create a mortgage over it. A letter of undertaking to create mortgage of the entire property after construction of the house, a letter of undertaking to complete the construction within three years from the date of availment of the initial loan to create charge for the property, register lien on the property in favour of the bank, a demand pronote for full amount of the loan, create lien on the Provident Fund and Gratuity. The documents claimed to have been deposited by the complainant with the bank are original agreement of sale, original Municipal permission obtained for the construction of building and Stamped receipts issued by the builder. So documents mentioned in the sanctioned letter Ex.A2 does not include the documents claimed to have been deposited by the complainant with the bank. To create mortgage over an immovable property or to create a lien by way of deposit of title deeds of the property and nothing else. The agreement of sale, Municipal permission granted for the construction of the building and stamped receipts given by the builder for the amounts collected from the purchaser of the flat are not documents of the title so as to believe the complainant’s version that in order to sanction of loan he was asked to deposit these documents. Even assuming for a moment that the complainant has deposited these documents they are off no use to the bank because bank by collecting these documents bank cannot claim any right or lien over the property of the complainant. That apart as rightly pointed out by the opposite parties the original Municipal permission for the construction of the building will be with builder who supposed to hand over it to the flat owners association after sale of the all the flats and forming of an association by the flat owners. Admittedly the complainant did not purchase all the flats in the building so as to say that the builder delivered him original sanctioned plan obtained from the Municipality. Complainant purchased only one flat among the six (6) flats constructed by the builder, then how can the builder deliver him the original plan is not explained. When the panel advocate who gave legal opinion under Ex.A1 to the bank did not advice the bank to collect the Municipal sanctioned plan or agreement of sale or stamped receipts how the bank did insist on the complainant to deposit these documents. Thus the material brought on the record does not inspire any confidence to say that the complainant deposited original agreement of sale, Municipal permission or receipts with the bank in order to disburse the loan amount to him. Accordingly point is answered against the complainant.
Point No.3: The findings of this Forum to the above points are that the complainant failed to establish deposit of original documents by him with the bank and when such is the case returning of the documents by the bank does not arise. Hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
Point No.4: In view of the above findings it is to follow that the complainant is not entitled for reliefs prayed in the complaint.
Point No.5: In the result, the complaint is dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/- to the opposite parties.
Dictated to steno, transcribed and typed by her, pronounced by us on this the 19th day of February , 2020.
LADYMEMBER MALEMEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Exs. filed on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A1- legal opinion dated 6-5-1987
Ex.A2- Sanction letter for Rs.1,25,000/- dt.26-05-1987
Ex.A3- Sanction letter for Rs.50,000/- dt.26-05-1987
Ex.A4-letter dt. 6-01-2017
Ex.A5- letter dt.3-02-2017
Ex.A6- legal notice dt.14-04-2017
Ex.A7-postal acknowledgment
Ex.A8- postal receipts
Ex.A9- No due certificate dt.6-7-2018
Exs. filed on behalf of the Opposite parties - Nil
LADYMEMBER MALEMEMBER PRESIDENT
