State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/Manivannan, S/O.Manivasagam,7Th ... vs The Senior Manager- Corporate ... on 15 March, 2011
BEFORE THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI (BENCH II) Present: Thiru.A.K.Annamalai, M.A., M.L., M.Phil., Presiding Member Judicial Tmt.Vasugi Ramanan, M.A., B.L., Member F.A.No.512/2008 [Against order in C.C.No.661/2005 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (South)] TUESDAY, THE 15th DAY OF MARCH 2011. . M/Manivannan, S/o.Manivasagam, Rep.by his Power Agent, M.Karunanidhi, Residing at Plot No.1321 A, 7th Cross Street, Poompuhar Nagar, Kolathur, Chennai 600 099. .. Appellant/Complainant. Vs. The Senior Manager- Corporate Legal, HDFC Bank of India, ITC Centre, II Floor, 760, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002. .. Respondent/Opposite party The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Chennai (South) alleging deficiency against the opposite party to return the original title deeds, to issue a certificate declaring closure of Loan Account No.1073703, to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for financial loss, hardship and mental agony and to pay further sum of Rs.25,000/- towards costs. The District Forum, dismissed the complaint against the opposite party. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the complainant, praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Chennai (South) dated 29.05.08 in C.C. No.661/2005. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 01.03.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on both sides, and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order :- Counsel for the Appellant/complainant : M/s.P.V.Giridhar, Advocates. Counsel for the Respondent/Opposite party : M/s.Sampathkumar, Advocate. ORDER
A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING MEMBER JUDICIAL
1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.
2. The complainant/appellant filed a complaint before the District Forum, praying for directions to the opposite party to return the original title deed pertaining to the property of the complainant and to issue a certificate declaring closure of his housing loan and to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the financial loss hardship and mental agony and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards cost.
3. The opposite party filed its written version, in which denied the allegations of the complaint and stated that the complainant originally obtained a housing loan from the Tamil Nadu Petro Limited, wherein he was employed and subsequently the Tamil Nadu Petro Products Limited transferred the loan account of the employees to the opposite party bank and the complainant paid the loan dues to the opposite party for which to return the documents consent of the TNPL is required and when it was applied for the opposite party stated that the complainant was not relieved from the company on his resignation and a civil suit was filed by the company against the complainant and as per the letter dated 8.11.2004 he has to pay certain amount to the company and as per the TNPL Circular dated 29.7.02 stipulates that the opposite party was not part with the title deeds of the property of any employee without written consent from TNPL, the title deeds and other documents shall be released by the HDFC only after getting written consent from TNPL. Hence there is no deficiency of service.
4. On the basis of materials placed before the Forum the District Forum after an enquiry dismissed the complaint by stating that the complainant is not entitled for return of document and compensation.
5. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the appellant/complainant has come forward with this appeal in which he contended that the District Forum erroneously held that there cannot be two parallel remedies simultaneously, on the basis of the suit pending before High Court which was not filed by the complainant and the entire loan amount was paid to the opposite party, after resignation from TNPL on 29.12.2003 and he wanted to transfer the valuable immovable property to meet his urgent financial needs and the opposite party accepted for pre-payment charges along with the interest on loan till date and after collecting of the amounts ought to have issued discharge certificate and return title deed which was not done would amounts to deficiency of service and after filing the complaint, even though the title deeds and discharge certificate had been issued to the complainant, The District Forum is erroneous finding that there was no justification stating as no deficiency of service.
6. Whether the contention of the opposite party stating that the return of title deeds and discharge certificate are to be made only after getting the consult of the employer and whom the complainant was working. It is not in dispute that the complainant was originally working with Tamil Nadu Petro Products Limited as an employee and the company has transferred all the housing loans of the employees to the opposite party bank and as per the same the complainant wanted to discharge his housing loan as pre-closure one, due to his contingences and accordingly he has paid the entire housing loan along with necessary charges for the issuance of mortgage discharge certificate and return of title deeds as a preclosure one. But after payment the opposite party has refused to return the title deeds on the ground only after getting the consent from the employer of the complainant it should be complied. It is also not in dispute that the complainant has resigned from the employer and there was litigation pending between the complainant and his employer and his resignation was not accepted as on the date of alleged discharge of loan with the opposite party. After receipt of payment for their entire loan the opposite party has received a letter as per Exhibit A17. On the basis of this letter dated 13.10.04 and 18.11.04, the employer TNPL addressed to the opposite party bank in which it stated along other things as follows:- Mr.Manivannan has joined a competitor in business on TNPL in controversion to the regulations of the company under the official and non closure agreement. The Management has decided that he shall not be entitled for the concessional rate of interest in respect of the housing loan given by the company up to the date of prior to the transfer of loan of HDFC under the CEFA Scheme. We have determined the interest payable by Mr.Manivannan to the company in respect of housing loan computed 9.5% p.a. from the date of first disbursement by TNPL on 27.3.1992 up to the date of his unauthorized absence from 30.12.2003.
Accordingly Mr.Manivannan is liable to pay a sum of Rs.46,768.55 to the company. On that basis the opposite party refused to return the title deed and issue of discharge certificate as per the letter Exhibit A16 issued to the complainant to work out with the TNPL to get the No Objection Certificate. It is also pointed out that the company moved before the Honble High Court against the complainant for the dispute between them. Even though, the complainant has not initiated the proceedings before the High Court, it is clearly established that the employer is not willing to give concessional rate of interest for his loan to the complainant from the date of his unauthorized absence from the company and asked to collect the difference in interest at Rs.46,768.55 and in the circumstances, the complainant should have paid only at the concessional rate of interest before closing his housing loan with the opposite party and unless and until settled the dues to the ex-employer and to obtain no objection certificate from the employer, the opposite party cannot return the title deeds in view of the condition imposed by the employer and also in view of the circular issued by the employer in 2002, in which it was specifically stated that the original title deed relating to the property and mortgage of its employees shall not be returned without the written consent of the TNPL. Hence the non return of the documents by the opposite party would not amounts to deficiency of service. However pending enquiry before the District Forum the opposite party returned the documents to the complainant on 19.3.07 which was acknowledged by the power of attorney of the appellant on 21.3.07 as per the endorsement made before the District Forum and in view of the same nothing survived in the complaint of the complainant as of now and the complaint become infructuous after that date, before the District Forum. Hence in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, as detailed above the opposite party cannot be held liable for deficiency of service to award any compensation. The appellant counsel relied upon the ruling reported in AIR 2006 P&H73, IV (2006) BC 128, (2006(2)JCR 258), (2006) 142 PLR488 and MANU/CF/0378/2002 in which it was held that the non return of title deeds for a long period after the amount was paid to the parties would amount to deficiency.
As far as our case is concerned this Commission fears that those rulings are not applicable in our case. While considering the facts and circumstances of the cases relied upon by the appellant and in our case the non return of the documents after payment of loan is disputed by the employer relating to the entire payment for loan given regarding interest rate and issuance of no objection certificate by the employer to the bank as the bank opposite party not directly involved in granting the loan to the complainant are all different to the facts of those cases relied upon by the appellant. In those circumstances, we feel that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the order of the District Forum, Chennai (South) in C.C. No.661/2005 dated 29.05.08 hereby confirmed. There will be no order as to cost in this appeal.
VASUGI RAMANAN A.K.ANNAMALAI, MEMBER PRESIDING MEMBER JUDICIAL INDEX : YES / NO sg/B-II/aka//HDFC Bank