State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S. Lic Housing Finance Limited ... vs Gollapalli Vijay Srinivas Rao S/O.Sri ... on 14 November, 2012
BEFORE THE A
BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD.
FA.No.1061/2011
against C.C.No.425/2010 District Forum-I, Visakhapatnam
Between
M/s. LIC Housing Finance Limited
Rep. by its Area Manager
D1 & D2, 2nd floor, Dwaraka Plaza,
Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam-520 016. ..Appellant/
Opp.party
And
1. Gollapalli Vijay Srinivas Rao
S/o.Sri Ramulu
Hindu, aged 39 years,
residing at
D.No.13-31/2,
Lakshminarasayammanagar,
Sujatanagar, Pendurti.
2. Smt.Vandrasi Aruna Kumari W/o.Sri Gollapalli
Vijay Srinivas Rao, Hindu, aged 36 years,
Residing at D.No.13-31/2,
Lakshimarasayamma
Nagar, Sujatanagar, Pendurti. ..Respondents/
Complainants
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s S.Siva Shanker
Counsel for the Respondents : Mr
S.U.V.Srinivas
QUORUM: THE HONBLE SRI
JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT,
SMT.M.SHREESHA, HONBLE MEMBER,
AND
SRI
S.BHUJANGA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER.
WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND TWELVE Order (Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Honble Member) *** Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.425/2010 on the file of District Forum-I, Visakhapatnam, opposite party preferred this appeal.
The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainants, wife and husband who are working availed housing loan from the opposite party in the year 2005 to construct a house in Lakshminarasayammanagar, Sujathanagar, Visakhapatnam and a loan of Rs.10,00,000/- was sanctioned which has to be released in three instalments of Rs.4,00,000/-, Rs.4,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- respectively. The term for repayment of loan was 20 years with EMI of Rs.8,000/- which has been revised gradually and fixed at Rs.11,616/-. The complainants submitted that the loan was sanctioned on 06-9-2005 by offer letter and the complainant deposited the title deeds as sought by the opposite party. The complainants submitted that they were very prompt and regular in payment of EMIs and that the opposite party initially released an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- and after few months the complainants requested them to release the 2nd and 3rd instalments but the opposite party was reluctant to release the same and thereby the first complainant made representations to the higher officials of the opposite party regarding the delay in releasing the loan. The complainants submitted that in the month of December, 2005, the opposite party informed the complainants that it had misplaced the original documents of the complainants and they were in shock. Finally in the month of December, 2005 opposite party sent an affidavit to the complainants requesting them to sign and submit the same to the office of the opposite party and stated that unless the said affidavit is signed and submitted, the 2nd and 3rd instalments will not be released to the complainants. The complainants submitted that they refused to sign the said affidavits as its contents are not true and requested the opposite party to release the 2nd and 3rd instalments at the earliest but the opposite party did not release the loan and the complainants again brought the said fact to the notice of the higher officials of the opposite party and thereafter the opposite party released the loan instalments to the complainants.
The complainants submitted that the reason for not accepting the said affidavit as they were asked to give up their claim over the title deeds in future and the documents were said to have been lost, when they were sent to Hyderabad by courier service and unless and until the said original documents are available, the complainants cannot deal with their property and it would loose its value and that they were not in a position to switch over to other banks, who are offering loans at a lesser rate of interest. The complainants submitted that due to negligent and irresponsible behaviour of the opposite party, the first complainant suffered Coronary Artery disease coupled with a risk factor of Hyper Lipid Amelia in June, 2008 at an age of 38 years and was admitted in hospital on 20-6-2008 and incurred an expenditure of Rs.2,00,000/- and the root cause for this was on account of tension and agony caused by opposite party in losing the original title deeds. The complainants submitted that they requested the opposite party to give a certificate confirming the misplacement of original documents but it refused to do so which is negligence and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complaint seeking direction to the opposite party to issue a certificate that the original documents of title were lost by it and could not be traced out and pay compensation of Rs.18,00,000/- for causing mental agony, tension besides costs of Rs.70,000/-.
Opposite party filed counter contending that the loan will be released basing on stage of construction and that is the reason for not releasing the loan. It admitted that when the documents of title have been sent through courier service, they were lost which is purely accidental and not due to negligence. It further submitted that it is the complainants who have not come forward to execute necessary documents for release of the instalments and that it had never insisted for execution of any document much less the affidavit as stated by the complainants. It submitted that it informed the complainants that it would provide certified copy of an endorsement that the originals have been deposited with it were lost in transit and could not be traced inspite of best efforts. Basing on the said endorsement and certified copies, the complainants could switch over to other banks or dispose of the property and the value will not come down because of loss of original title deeds. The incident of loss occurred in the year 2005 and the complainant alleged to have undergone the treatment in the year 2008 and so it cannot be attributed to loss of documents and the complaint is barred by limitation and also bad for non joinder of necessary party i.e. courier service and submitted that there is no deficiency in service and submitted that there are always ready and willing to give endorsement as to loss of documents, however, it cannot issue any endorsement as it would amount to losing the right to recover the loan amount and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A7 and B1 and the pleadings put forward, the District Forum allowed the complaint in part directing the opposite party to issue a certificate in favour of the complainant that Original Sale deed bearing No.4712/2005 dated 11-8-2005 in favour of the complainant, another document bearing No.2137/03, dated 3-5-2003 in favour of the complainants vendor D.Suresh Kumar and also original plan bearing No.28 dated 20-8-2005 along with proceedings issued by Secretary, Gram Panchayat, China Mushidivada, Visakhapatnam were misplaced by the opposite party and the same could not be traced so far within 30 days and also to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and costs of Rs.5,000/-.
Aggrieved by the said order, opposite party preferred this appeal.
The facts not in dispute are that the complainants availed housing loan from the opposite party on 6-9-2005 (Ex.A1) for constructing a house in Visakhapatnam for an amount of Rs.10,00,000/-. Admittedly the complainants deposited their original deeds dated 11-8-2005 and also link documents of the year 2003 besides original panchayat plan which the opposite party misplaced and informed the complainant vide Ex.A2 letter dated 14-11-2005 about the loss of original documents in transit by courier. Ex.B1, statement of accounts evidences that the complainant was paid an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- towards first instalment and the remaining two instalments were disbursed on 30-12-2005 and 4-3-2006.
Ex.A4 letter from the complainant on 13-12-2005 shows that the complainant requested for release of the second instalment of Rs.4,00,000/- stating that the second and third stage of construction was completed. The complainant also filed Ex.A5 which is a typed format alleged to have been issued by the opposite party which reads as follows:
I submit that I am submitting the certified extract of the original sale deed for pursuing my loan application and further disbursement of the amount. I submit that I shall not make any claim for the original documents in future and I shall abide by the conditions for the disbursement of the loan till the repayment is made by me.
I submit that in case if the original documents are traced out, the same may be informed to me so as to collect the same after the repayment of the loan.
This Ex.A5 is denied by the opposite party and the appellant contend that they have never informed the complainant that he should not make any claim for the original documents in future. However, from the documentary evidence on record, it is clear that the opposite party released the second instalment on 30-12-2005 and the third instalment on 04-3-2006. The opposite party tried to secure an affidavit from the complainants with an undertaking to give up claim with original title deeds in future also and released the two instalments at an appropriate stage. Even otherwise, the opposite party did not file any evidence to substantiate that they had traced the original documents and handed over to the complainant. The appellant admitted that the original documents were lost in transit by the courier and further contend that the loss of documents was in the year 2005 and the complaint was filed on 10-11-2010 and hence the complaint is barred by limitation. However, we observe from the record that vide Ex.A2 dated 14-11-2005, the opposite party admitted that they have lost the original documents in transit and that they are coordinating with the courier company and would send the complainants, the necessary papers. It is also not in dispute that the final loan was dispersed on 04-3-2006 and even as on that date the opposite party did not trace the lost documents nor did the complainants receive any certificate from the opposite party with respect to loss of documents and therefore it can be construed as continuing cause of action and this complaint cannot be said to be barred by limitation. The District Forum has rightly allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to issue the certificate in favour of the complainants and we do not see any grounds to interfere with the compensation awarded by the District Forum as the mental agony suffered by the complainant cannot be understated as the documents lost were the original title deeds which the complainants did not have possession of till date and the opposite party did not even take steps to rectify the said loss by issuing any certificate to that effect till date.
In the result this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs.3,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.
Sd/-PRESIDENT.
Sd/-MEMBER.
Sd/-MEMBER.
JM Dt.14-11-2012