State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sri Muppidi Eswara Rao S/O Late Satyam vs Icici Bank Limited on 18 January, 2012
BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD F.A.No.355 OF 2010 AGAINST C.C.No.512 OF 2008 DISTRICT FORUM-I VISAKHAPATNAM Between Sri Muppidi Eswara Rao S/o late Satyam aged 56 years, R/o H.No.94, Plot No.96 Ground Floor, Siddardha Nagar, Vadlapudi Visakhapatnam-012 Appellant/ complainant A N D ICICI Bank Limited rep. by its Branch Manager 103A, 1st Floor, Siripuram Fort Visakhapatnam Respondent/opposite party Counsel for the Appellant Ms V.Chaitanya Latha Counsel for the Respondent Sri P.Ramachandran QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER
& SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HONBLE MEMBER WEDNESDAY THE EIGTEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND TWELVE Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) ***
1. Feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded of `28,480/-with interest @9%p.a. towards refund of the amount paid by him, `1,00,000/- towards compensation and costs of `8,000/- . the complainant filed the appeal contending that the amount awarded is inadequate.
2. The facts of the case leading to filing the appeal are that the appellant obtained house building loan of `2,50,000/- from the respondent bank on 21-09-2002 with floating rate of interest @ 11.25% payable in 133 equated monthly installments @ `3,202/-. The loan was to be repaid during the period from 7-11-2002 to 7-11-2013. The appellant deposited the title deeds of his property and post dated cheques as security for repayment of the loan amount.
3. The appellant claimed to have chosen for preclosure of loan account on the premise of the respondent charging excessive rate of overdue charges and on his filing application for grant of loan, the GIC Housing Financial Ltd sanctioned a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-on fixed rate of interest @ 8.25% subject to confirmation of possession and delivery of the documents by the respondent bank. The respondent addressed letter dated 8-02-2005 to the GIC Housing Financial Ltd claiming a sum of `2,21,762/- and it did not respond to the request made by the appellant on 5-03-2005 and 21-03-2005 as to the confirmation of possession of the title deeds and delivering them to the GIC Housing Financial Ltd. On 24-11-2207 the appellant paid the entire loan amount minus a sum of `5,000/- reduced by the respondent bank. Title deeds were not returned to the appellant.
4. The appellant stated to have entered into agreement with third party sell the property mortgaged to the respondent bank for a consideration of `25,00,000/- and received a sum of `5,00,000/- as advance and on his failure to hand over the title deed he stated to have agreed to pay interest @ 36% p.a. on the amount of `5,00,000/-. The appellant claims loss of interest on the amount of `20,00,000/ - due towards the balance sale consideration from the prospective purchaser of the property, loss due to deprivation of availing the house building loan from GIC Housing Financial Ltd and payment of interest on the advance of `5,00,000/- , due to the failure of the respondent to return the documents .
5. The respondent resisted the claim denying the averments of the complaint and contended that there was no deficiency in service on its part.
6. The appellant has filed his affidavit and the documents, ExA1 to A11. The branch manager of the respondent bank has filed his affidavit but no documents.
7. The District Forum allowed the complaint on the premise of the failure of the respondent to return the documents would constitute deficiency in service on the part of the bank.
8. The complainant filed the appeal contending that the amount awarded under different heads is inadequate, for the District Forum did not choose to direct the respondent bank to return the documents or it ought to have awarded interest till such time the documents are returned to the appellant. It is contended that the District Forum awarded compensation, a sum of `1,00,000/- which is not adequate since the appellant was forced to pay interest @ 36%p.a. and visited the office of the respondent bank for several times.
9. The point for consideration is whether the appellant is entitled to the enhancement of the amounts awarded by the District Forum?
10. The appellant availing the loan on 21-09-2002 to the tune of `2,50,000/- on interest @ 11.25 payable in 133 equated monthly installments and repayment of the loan on 24-11-2007 is not disputed. The District Forum returned finding that the respondent bank was negligent in not returning the documents after discharge of the loan by the appellant, basing on the decisions of the Honble National Commission in HDFC vs Santa Sundar Rajan 2008(4)30(NC), Tukaram Anantha Set vs Karnataka BankI(2006)CPJ110 (NC), C.L.Khanna vs Dena BankIV(2005)CPJ 137 (NC), Dosan Chemicals Pvt Ltd vs United Bank of India I(2003)CPJ 214(NC).
11. The District Forum awarded a sum of Rs.28,476/- towards the differential rate of interest i.e., the rate of interest collected by the respondent bank and the one offered by GIC Housing Financial Ltd. The District Forum has rightly disbelieved the sale transaction of the property mortgaged to the respondent bank on two counts, Firstly, the appellant has not produced evidence to show such transaction has taken place and secondly, the appellant has not even mentioned about the sale transaction in the notice dated 17-03-2008 which he got issued through his advocate to the respondent bank or in his letter dated 21-03-2005 and the appellant has not filed the affidavit of the prospective purchaser. Thus, no amount was awarded for the relief under the sale transaction. Except stating that the District Forum has not considered the sale transaction, the appellant failed to show as to how he could claim the amount on a sale transaction which did not take place and which has not been proved by any cogent evidence.
12. The appellant is a physically challenged person and he was made to visit for several times the office of the respondent bank for getting back his title deeds. The respondent did not evince interest in letting the appellant know the status of the documents as whether they could not be traceable or lost and beyond the control of the bank. The respondent has not challenged the order of the District Forum by way of filing appeal. The appellant has not sought for return of the documents and the question of adequacy or inadequacy of the reliefs granted can be considered only in the light of the relief for return of the documents. The appellant somehow did not seek for return of the documents. Therefore, we are inclined to remit back the matter for the limited purpose of allowing the appellant to amend the relief portion of the complaint and permitting the respondent file additional written version if any, and the parties to adduce evidence on that score.
13. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The matter is remanded to the District Forum for the limited purpose of amendment of relief portion of the complaint to seek for return of the documents and permitting the respondent file additional written version if any, and the parties to adduce evidence on that score. The parties shall appear before the District Forum on 7-02-2012. The parties shall bear their own costs.
Sd/-
MEMBER Sd/-
MEMBER Dt.18.01.2012 KMK*