Before
the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal
S.C Case
No. 7/O/2007
In the
matter of:-
1.
MR.PANDAV
ROY
Son of Mr. Partha Roy
2.
MR.
PARTHA ROY
Son of late Provat Samir
Roy
Both residing at TC/3, 2nd
Floor, Golf Green Phase I, Uday Shankar Sarani, Kolkata – 700095.
…. Petitioners
-VERSUS-
1.
M/S.MERLIN
PROJECTS LTD
A firm of Promoters and
Developers incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956, having its Registered Office at 79 Sambunath Pandit Street, Kolkata 700020.
2.
MR.VIKAS
MIMANI,
Manager, Merlin Projects
Ltd. 79, Sambunath Pandit Street, Kolkata 700020.
…. Opposite
Parties.
An application for amendment of the Complaint
Petition in terms of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
The humble petition on
behalf of the complainants above named:-
Most Respectfully Sheweth:-
1.
That
petitioners had filed S.C Case No.7/O/2007 against the Opposite Parties before
this Hon’ble Commission on 01.03.2007.
2.
That
the above complaint was disposed of by this Hon’ble Commission vide order dated
24.02.2009.
3.
That
the Opposite Parties challenged the above order before the Hon’ble National
Commission and the said appeal was registered as First Appeal No.128/2009.
4.
That
the said appeal was disposed of by the Hon’ble National Commission by an order
passed on 23.05.2014.
5.
That
the Opposite Parties challenged the above order before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India vide Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.21217 which was disposed
of by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 01.09.2015.
6.
That
the Hon’ble Supreme Court by the above solemn order was pleased to implead the
concerned financing bank, Union Bank of India, No.57, Rashbehari Avenue,
Kolkata 700026 in the case.
7.
That the Hon’ble Apex Court was also pleased
to direct the complainant to amend their complaint appropriately and remanded
the case back to the Hon’ble State Commission with a request for expeditious
disposal of the same, in view of the long time already taken in the matter.
8.
It is pertinent to mention here that during pendency of
their appeal before the Hon’ble National Commission, the O.P Nos. 1 & 2 had
clandestinely transferred and registered the subject property to a third party
and had thereby contumaciously rendered the order passed by the Hon’ble State Commission
infructuous.
9.
It was also found that the Builder had falsely claimed to
be the sole owner of the property in all related documents whereas the property
was jointly owned by another party - a fact which was suppressed.
10.
The Hon’ble National Commission was duly informed of the
above facts and the order dated 23.05.2014 was accordingly passed by the said
Hon’ble Commission directing the Opposite Parties to pay compensation, penalty
and costs.
11.
That
the proposed amendments in respect of (a) The Cause Title, (b) the Factual
Portion and (c) the Prayer Portion of the original complaint are mentioned
below and under such circumstances, your petitioner humbly prays for amendment
of their complaint as per schedule mentioned below and humbly submit that unless
this prayer is allowed your petitioner will be highly prejudiced.
In the premises, it is
prayed that Your Lordship would be pleased to admit this application and considering
the facts and circumstances, the prayer for amendment in terms of the schedule
hereunder be allowed for the ends of justice and Your Lordship may kindly pass
further order or orders as considered fit and proper.
And for this, your petitioner as in
duty bound shall ever pray.
SCHEDULE OF AMENDMENT
CAUSE
TITLE:
In the Cause Title, after O.P Nos. 1
& 2, Union Bank of India be impleaded as O.P No.3.
3.
UNION
BANK OF INDIA
A Body Corporate
constituted under Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of
Undertakings) Act 1970, through MR. SUPRIYO SENGUPTA, Manager
of Sarat Bose Road Branch of the bank at 57, Rashbehari Avenue, Kolkata – 700026.
FACTUAL
PORTION
In the complaint, after paragraph no.26
the following paragraphs be added in terms of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court and in view of the changed circumstances.
27.
Petitioners
submit that M/s. Merlin Projects Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the said
“Builder”) and Union Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the said “Bank”)
acting in connivance with
each other jointly & severally violated provisions of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to deprive the petitioner of rightful ownership
and occupancy of their property and to
substantiate the above fact, the petitioners submit as under:
28.
On 01.05.2003, Petitioners had entered
into an Allotment Agreement and a Supplementary Agreement with the Builder for
purchase of the subject property for a total consideration of Rs.16,25,000
which included ‘one-time’ payment of Rs.2,00,000 for provision of common &
related services as per terms of the aforesaid Supplementary Agreement; and on
execution of above agreements, petitioners paid Rs.50,000 to the Builder as
advance.
29.
By letters
dated 15.07.2003, 25.08.2003 & 24.09.2003 copies of which are collectively
attached hereto as Annexure “P/1”, the
Builder promised that – “Upon payment of
15% of consideration we shall execute the Sale Agreement in your favour”, but despite receiving and duly confirming receipt of the
above amount in full the Builder did not
execute the Sale Agreement as promised.
30.
On
15.10.2003 petitioners applied for a loan of Rs.15,00,000 from Union Bank of India, Sarat Bose Road
Branch, 57 Rashbehari Avenue, Kolkata 700026, for
purchase of the subject property.
31.
As directed by concerned Bank
officials, petitioners submitted their personal & income related documents
with their loan application and were informed that the Bank would collect the required
property related documents directly from the Builder.
32.
The property
related documents which were required to be verified by the Bank have been
marked by the petitioners as item nos. “8” to “14” in the Bank’s published list
of “Documents for Union Home”, a copy
of which is attached hereto as Annexure
“P/2”.
33.
By a letter dated 22.01.2004, a copy of which is attached hereto as Annexure ‘P/3”, the Branch Manager Mr.
Supriyo Sengupta informed petitioners that their home loan had been
provisionally sanctioned, subject to payment of 15% Earnest Money to the
Builder and upon execution of a Tripartite Agreement between the Bank, the
Builder and the Borrowers.
34.
Petitioners assumed that all required documents had been obtained &
verified by the Bank; and reposing trust on Mr. Supriyo Sengupta, petitioners
paid the balance Earnest Money to the Builder and executed the required
Tripartite Agreement, a copy of
which is attached hereto as Annexure”P/4”.
35.
Payment of Earnest Money of Rs.2,43,750 @ 15% of consideration was
confirmed in the above Tripartite Agreement as under: “Whereas the builder agreed to sell a Row House to the Borrowers under
an agreement of sale dated May 01, 2003 entered into between the Builder and
the Borrowers, which contains the terms and conditions for sale of the Row
House in favour of the Borrowers and in furtherance thereof has already paid
the Builder a sum of Rs.2,43,750/- as and by way of earnest money.”
36.
Despite
receiving the Earnest Money in full, the Builder did not execute a Sale
Agreement in favour of petitioner, but surprisingly, although no ‘Agreement of
Sale’ had been executed by the Builder, several references to a non-existent
‘Agreement of Sale’ was made in the said Tripartite Agreement by Mr. Supriyo
Sengupta.
37.
When this discrepancy was queried by petitioners
under provisions of Right to Information Act, the Central Public Information
Officer (CPIO) of the Bank tried to absolve the Bank’s deficiency by replying
as follows in his letter dated 11.03.2013:
“The agreement for sale referred to in your query no.1 is actually an
agreement of allotment but nature of this document is like agreement of sale”.
38.
However in
paragraph 4 of the same letter the CPIO made the following statement which
firmly established the deficiency of the Bank – “we wish to inform that it is not
permissible to disburse a home loan solely on the strength of an unregistered
Allotment Agreement between a private builder and a borrower.” A copy of the above letter is attached hereto as Annexure “P/5”.
39.
By a letter dated 25.02.2004, a copy of which is attached hereto as Annexure “P/6”, Mr. Supriyo Sengupta
informed petitioners that their home loan had been sanctioned and directed them
to visit the Branch to issue further instructions.
40.
However, on reaching
the Branch on the next day, petitioner no.2 was shocked to find that without their
instructions, the balance consideration of Rs.13,81,250 had been disbursed to
the Builder on the previous day itself although the Builder had not even
executed a Sale Agreement favouring Borrowers, leave alone getting it
registered and deposited in the Bank as a security against the loan.
41.
Disbursement of loan without creating any equitable mortgage on the
property violated following condition of the Tripartite Agreement: “Whereas the Bank on the
written application and request of the Borrowers has already sanctioned a loan
of Rs.15,00,000/- to the borrowers (vide sanction dated 22.01.2004) and has agreed
to disburse / release the loan soon after the Borrowers creates an equitable
mortgage by deposit of title deeds relating the Row House to be purchased by
them from the Builder.”
42.
To establish the malafide
manner in which their loan was disbursed petitioners quote the following
statements made by the CPIO of the Bank in following paragraphs of his letter
dated 04.08.2011, a copy of which is attached hereto as Annexure “P/7”:
Paragraph 6: “We do not have information as to prior to
the loan disbursement whether builder transferred the title of the subject
property to the borrowers by means of a duly registered sale deed / deed of
conveyance.”
Paragraph 7: “After executing the agreement of allotment,
after loan disbursement and handing over of the subject flat to you, we did not
receive the duly registered sale deed / deed of conveyance.”
43.
Disbursement of the loan without an Agreement of Sale/ Sale Deed
construed gross violation of home loan rules
of the Bank as per the following statement made by the CPIO of the Bank in his letter
dated 01.03.2012, a copy of which is attached as Annexure “P/8”: Paragraph 6: “A loan can not be disbursed without an agreement for sale / sale deed
being executed.”
Paragraph 7: “A loan can not be disbursed without the
Agreement of Sale / Sale Deed being deposited in the Bank in order to create an
equitable mortgage.”
44.
It is also on record that the Bank did not serve a
single notice on the Builder directing them to abide by the promise made by
them in Clause11 of the Tripartite Agreement which is quoted below: “The Builder consents to put through
equitable mortgage by way of title deeds by the Borrowers of the Row House No.
B 15 more fully described in the Agreement to Sell dated May 01, 2003, agreed
to be sold to the Borrowers”.
45.
It is therefore evident that Mr. Supriyo Sengupta
disbursed the petitioners’ home loan to the Builder without creating any
equitable mortgage and/or security interest on the property and thereby malafidely
allowed the Builder to retain the title of the property even after selling it
and receiving full payment.
46.
It is on record that Mr. Supriyo
Sengupta had issued a letter on 25.02.2004 forwarding a Pay Order
of Rs.13,81,250 to the Builder, but he did not mark a copy of this important letter
to the Borrowers. Scrutiny of the said letter, a copy of which is attached as Annexure “P/9”, will bear testimony to
the fact.
47.
It therefore appears that Mr. Supriyo Sengupta paid the Builder in full without any
prior intimation to the Borrowers so that they could not intervene and stop the
unlawful disbursement made by him in gross violation of banking norms and terms
of the loan.
48.
After disbursement of Rs.13,81,250 on 25.02.2004,
Rs.1,18,750 was remaining as balance in the petitioners’ home loan a/c for
meeting stamp duty & registration costs. However, there is nothing on
record to show that the Builder had requested either the Bank or the
petitioners for release of the said amount.
49.
Therefore it is evident that the Builder did not
wish to transfer & register the property as the process would expose the
fact that they had extracted their full payment from the petitioners loan
account by providing false ownership details of the property.
50.
Petitioners
further submit that as per Reserve Bank of India order their home loan could be
disbursed only after the property was inspected by a Bank appointed Architect
and certified that it is a legally constructed structure conforming to
sanctioned Building Plans / Bye Laws. A copy of the Reserve Bank of India
circular to this effect is attached as Annexure
“P/10”.
51.
It is however on record that Mr. Supriyo Sengupta disbursed the petitioners’ loan in violation
of above RBI order and to substantiate, petitioners quote following statements
made by the CPIO of Union Bank of India in various letters issued by him:-
Paragraph 4 of aforesaid letter dated 01.03.2012 marked as
Annexure “P/8”: “It is required for a Bank
appointed architect to inspect and certify that the property is legally
constructed and is conforming to sanctioned Building Plans/Bye Laws”.
Paragraph 3 of letter dated 04.08.2011 attached
as Annexure “P/11”: “Prior to
loan disbursement the built-up house was not inspected by a Bank appointed
Architect;
Paragraph 5 of letter dated 11.03.2013 attached as Annexure “P/12”: “We wish to inform you that your
home loan had not been disbursed after inspection of the subject property by
Bank appointed Architect.”
52.
From the above facts on record, it is evident that
to unduly favour the Builder, the Bank disbursed the petitioners’ home loan in
gross violation of RBI rules.
53.
After the loan was disbursed, petitioners
were highly concerned that while the Builder had received
their full payment, the property purchased by the petitioners had neither been
transferred to them nor mortgaged to the Bank.
54.
However, when they complained about this matter to
Mr. Supriyo Sengupta, he assured them that the Builder who was well known to
him would definitely perform their obligations. He then advised the petitioners
to immediately take possession of the property.
55.
Reposing trust on the Bank and the Builder,
petitioners moved into the property after the keys were handed over to them on
20.04.2004 by the Builder.
56.
Petitioners had repeatedly
requested the Bank and the Builder, both verbally and in writing, to complete
the required transfer & mortgage formalities but no action was taken and
their letters were not replied. Copies of the letters issued by petitioners on
21.06.2004, 30.06.2004 and 25.08.2005 are collectively attached hereto as Annexure “P/13”.
57.
After paying EMI of Rs.2,45,614 over 2 years, in
addition to Rs.2,43,750 paid as Earnest Money, petitioners became highly
concerned that the Builder was not taking any steps to execute and register a
Sale Agreement in their favour and the Bank was also not taking any steps to securitize
the property.
58.
Therefore, suspecting that they were being duped of
legal ownership of their property jointly by the Bank and the Builder,
petitioners informed the Bank by a letter dated 03.05.2006 that
they were stopping EMI payments till the required transfer & mortgage
formalities were duly completed. Furthermore, the petitioners offered to prepay
their loan in full subject to their property being duly
transferred to them. A copy of this letter is attached as Annexure “P/13A”.
59.
In reply,
the Bank mentioned that the petitioners’ demands were “frivolous”. Copy of this
letter issued by the Bank’s lawyer on 03.06.2006 is attached as Annexure “P/14”
60.
Feeling
insecure and helpless, the petitioners started to strongly press the Builder
for completion of transfer & mortgage formalities whereupon the Builder
falsely claimed on 15.09.2006 that they had not received the Earnest Money of
Rs.2,43,750 although they had confirmed receipt of the same in the Tripartite Agreement.
61.
Petitioners protested about the above false allegation whereupon by a letter dated 23.10.2006
the Builder declared the petitioners as trespassers, ordered them to hand over
their property and directed their staff to stop common & related
services to their house. A copy of this letter is attached as Annexure “P/15”.
62.
Being unable
to live without common & related services like water supply, power back-up
etc, petitioners were forced to vacate their house which they had been lawfully
occupying for 2½ years and they moved to a rented flat at a high cost. Since
then they are staying in rented flats by paying an average monthly rent of
Rs.15,000 and during the last 9 years they have paid Rs.16,20,000 as rent which
is more than even the home loan amount they had availed from the Bank.
63.
Being
aggrieved, petitioners filed Consumer Complaint No. SC/07 /O/2007 against the
Builder before the Hon’ble State Commission
seeking relief of transfer & registration of the suit property to
them; restoration of common & related services to their house and for
payment of compensation & costs.
64.
The Bank was not impleaded in the case as it held no lien on the
property and was therefore not legally competent to directly transfer it to the
complainants. Also, the Bank officials were not physically capable of providing
water supply, power back up etc to their house and therefore petitioners considered
it futile to implead the Bank.
65.
During the
period 2006 – 2007 petitioners made several offers to repay their loan in full
resting with their letter dated 26.06.2007, a copy of which is attached as Annexure “P/16”.
66.
However, although petitioners were ready & willing to repay their
loan, on 28.07.2007 Bank served a Repossession Notice on them purportedly under
Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial
Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act.
67.
On 17.08.2007, petitioners challenged above notice by filing Writ
Petition No.18936 / 2007 before the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court, citing the
following questions of law:
a.
Whether the
respondent Bank authorities concerned can proceed under provisions of SARFAESI
Act, 2002 without creating any Security Interest by deposit of title Deeds in
respect of the concerned property?
b.
Whether the
respondent Bank can disburse the loan amount to the promoter-developer without
creating any Equitable Mortgage and / or Security Interest by deposit of title
Deeds in respect of the concerned property?
c.
Whether the respondent Bank can invoke provisions
of the SARFAESI Act 2002 when the Borrowers are ready & willing to repay
their loan in full?
68.
The Hon’ble Calcutta
High Court was pleased to pass an interim order on 24.08.2007 directing that
further action of the Bank should abide by result of WP No. 18936/2007. The
Bank was also directed to file affidavit-in-opposition by 21.09.2007 which they
failed to do. Copy of the order is attached as Annexure “P/17”
69.
As petitioners had
already been driven out of their house by the Builder, they handed it over to
the Bank and offered to repay their loan whereupon by letter dated 03.09.2007 the Bank confirmed that upon loan
repayment it would deliver back the property with title, rights and interests
by directly executing a Sale Deed in favour of petitioners. Copy of the letter
is attached as Annexure “P/18”.
70.
On
07.09.2007, the petitioner no.2 visited the Branch with their lawyer to repay
their loan and requested the Bank to allow them to view the property related
documents available with the Bank.
71.
However,
they were shocked to find that not a single
such document was in the custody of the Bank and
when they complained about this to the Bank’s Deputy General Manager, Mr. S.
Govindan, he abused them thoroughly and refused to execute any Sale Deed in
their favour as earlier promised.
72.
Petitioners then
realized that the Bank had disbursed their loan without searching records of
the built-up house sold to them by the Builders and in support of their
contention, petitioners quote the following statement made by the CPIO of the
Bank in his letter dated 17.10.2013: “Bank’s Advocate conducted search for the
land record only on which the subject property was built and not for the
subject property”. A copy of the above letter is attached hereto as Annexure “P/19”.
73.
On 16.11.2007,
without submitting any affidavit-in-opposition or waiting for result of the
Writ Petition pending in Calcutta High Court, Bank offered the suit property
for sale by public auction.
74.
Petitioners
protested against the above action by their letter dated 30.11.2007, a copy of
which is attached as Annexure “P/20”, but the Bank went ahead with the auction
which was attended by only one bidder whose bid of Rs.20,51,000 was accepted. The
said bidder then appointed a 3rd Party named M/s. Murarka Advisory
& Holdings Pvt. Ltd as their nominee.
75.
The Bank was however
unable to hand over the property to the said 3rd Party because the
Builder had in the meanwhile taken possession of the same by fixing their own
locks to the premises. Nor could the Bank directly transfer the property to the
said 3rd Party because the title and the original title deeds were
being unlawfully withheld by the Builder.
76.
The
Bank then colluded with the Builder and upon receipt of an additional amount of
Rs.3,25,000 from the said 3rd Party the Builder opened the locks
fixed by them to the property, restored
common & related services to make it
habitable and agreed to execute a Deed of Nomination and a Deed of
Conveyance in favour of the said 3rd Party. These facts are evident from the letter dated 16.04.2008
addressed by the Builder to the Bank with a copy marked to the said 3rd
Party which is attached hereto as Annexure
“P/21”.
77.
From the above
letter it is clear that the Bank had breached the petitioners trust by allowing
the Builder to take possession of their property which was entrusted to the
care of the Bank pending disposal WP No.18936 by Hon’ble Calcutta High Court.
78.
Moreover, the
Builder had malafidely taken possession of the property and transferred it to a
3rd party although after receiving their
payment on 25.02.2004 and handing over possession on 20.04.2004 the Builder
had ceased to be the Guarantor of the
petitioners’ loan and had no further jurisdiction on the property.
79.
To substantiate
their contention, petitioners quote Paragraph 8 of the aforesaid letter dated
01.03.2012 letter issued by CPIO of the Bank on 01.03.2012: “While entering into the tripartite
agreement the builder guarantees that the construction/development of the
schedule mentioned in the premises will be completed as per the terms &
conditions of the Agreement of Sale. But in the event of completion of the
construction and delivery of possession of the flat agreed to be purchased by
the borrower/s as per the terms contained in the Agreement of Sale, the builder
is relieved from all obligations and his guarantee does not subsist”.
80.
Moreover, although
the property was auctioned @ Rs.20,51,000 by the Bank, it was officially valued
@ Rs.31,25,100 by the Sub-Registrar’s
Office as on 19.11.2008 and Stamp Duty was paid on this value. Therefore, it appears
that the Bank undervalued the property by over Rs.10 Lakhs while selling it to
the said 3rd party.
81.
The Bank then sold
the property to a 3rd Party although the Borrowers were ready &
willing to repay their home loan in full thereby violating the Consumer Rights
of the petitioners.
82.
On 24.02.2009, the
Hon’ble State Commission passed an order directing the Builder to transfer
& register the property in favour of complainants, restore essential
services to make it habitable and pay compensation of Rs.50,000 and costs of
Rs.5,000.
83.
By then, the Builder
had already executed a Deed of Conveyance on 19.11.2008 in favour of the
aforesaid 3rd Party and had handed over the property to them.
Therefore, they were unable to execute the above order and to avoid doing so,
they filed First Appeal No.128/2009 before the Hon’ble National Commission.
84.
During hearing of
above appeal, the Builder raised several objections about actions taken by the
Bank purportedly under the SARFAESI Act but these were summarily rejected with
costs by the Hon’ble National Commission on the grounds mentioned in the
Interim Order dated 29.05.2012 passed in M.A No.1091 of 2011. A copy of this
order is attached as Annexure “P/22”.
85.
It may also be noted
that while the Bank had initiated purported SARFAESI proceedings on 24.08.2007,
the petitioners had filed the instant case 01.03.2007, or, several months
earlier. Also, it is on record that Mr. Supriyo Sengupta unlawfully disbursed
the petitioners’ home loan to the Builder on 25.02.2004 or 3½ years before the
Bank initiated proceedings against the petitioners purportedly under the
SARFAESI Act on 24.08.2007.
86.
As matters
pertaining to the SARFAESI Act did not subsist when this complaint case was
filed and also as applicability of the SARFAESI Act in respect of the un-securitized
property has not been admitted by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court, all
references to such matters are irrelevant in the context of the instant case.
87.
On 31.11.2012,
petitioners managed to obtain the Certified Copy of the Deed of Conveyance
executed by the Builder on 19.11.2008 and registered on 17.09.2012 in favour of
the aforesaid 3rd Party. A copy of the said Deed is attached as Annexure”P/23”. It is to be noted that
the Vendor No.1 named in the above deed is a party named M/s. Best Property
Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd.
88.
In this context,
petitioners quote following false declaration made by Builder in page 2 of
Tripartite Agreement dated 21.01.2004: “WHEREAS
the Builder is the owner and is seized and possessed of or otherwise well and
sufficiently entitled to all those pieces or parcels of lands, hereditaments
and premises bearing Row House No. B 15, more fully described in the schedule
hereunder.”
89.
On being queried,
CPIO of the Bank mentioned in his aforesaid letter dated 17.10.2013: “we wish to inform you that apparently we do
not have any record which shows that M/s. Merlin Projects Ltd was not the sole
owner of the subject property”.
90.
From the above 3 paragraphs,
it is amply clear that the Builder had provided false information about ownership
status of the built-up property sold to the petitioner and had thereby violated
the letter and spirit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which prohibits such
unethical business practice.
91.
It is also evident
that such deception could not have been possible without involvement of the
Bank authorities.
92.
Therefore, it is evident that the Opposite Parties No. 1, 2
& 3 jointly and severally violated provisions of the Consumer Protection
Act 1986 in the manner depicted below:
I.
That
the O.P Nos. 1 & 2 failed to execute an Agreement of Sale in favour of the
petitioners as repeatedly promised by them. Such failure constitutes a clear
deficiency in service as defined under provisions of the Consumer Protection
Act, 1986.
II.
That
the O.P No.3 sanctioned and disbursed the petitioners’ home loan on the
strength of a non-existent Agreement of Sale with full knowledge that such
unethical act would ensue in future losses to the petitioners who were clients
of the bank and consumers of the bank’s services.
III. That the O.P No.3 to unduly
favour the Builder sanctioned the petitioners’ home loan without obtaining
& verifying the property related documents as stipulated under home loan
rules of the bank with full knowledge that such unethical act would ensue in
future losses to the petitioners who were clients of the bank and consumers of
the bank’s services.
IV. That the O.P No.3 sanctioned
& disbursed the Petitioners’ home loan without any inspection of the
property being carried out by a Bank appointed Architect and thereby
contumaciously violated the strict orders of the Reserve Bank of India.
V.
That
to unduly favour the Builder, O.P no.3 unlawfully disbursed the petitioners’
home loan directly to O.P No.1 although the financed property had not been
transferred and the duly registered title deeds in favour of borrowers had not
been deposited in the Bank to create any security interest and/or equitable
mortgage on the property.
VI. That O.P Nos. 1 & 2 unlawfully withdrew common
& related services like water supply, power etc to the petitioners’ property
and thereby forced them to vacate the same and move to rented premises at a
high cost.
VII.
That the O.P Nos.1
& 2 clandestinely transferred & registered the petitioners’ property to
a 3rd Party while this case was being adjudicated on by the Hon’ble
National Commission and thereby contumaciously rendered the order passed by the
Hon’ble State Commission – infructuous.
VIII.
That the O.P No.1
falsely claimed to be the sole owner of the subject property in all agreements
executed by them. Such unethical business
practice is strictly forbidden under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
IX. That O.P No.3 did not accept several offers made by
petitioners to repay their loan thereby violating the sacrosanct Consumer
Rights of the petitioners to repay their home loan at any time.
PRAYER PORTION:
In the complaint petition the prayer as made is
required to be deleted and following prayers inserted:
i. Rs.56,25,000 be paid as compensation in lieu of the
petitioners’ property.
ii. Rs.16,25,000 be paid to reimburse actual house rent
paid by petitioners after being unlawfully evicted from their property on
23.10.2006
iii. Rs.10,00,000 be paid as damages for causing inhuman
physical sufferings, public humiliation
and mental trauma to petitioners.
iv. Rs.10,00,000 be paid as cost
of litigation over the last 8 years since this complaint was filed.
v. Pass further order or orders as Your Lordship may
deem fit and proper.
And for this, your petitioners as in duty bound
shall ever pray.
AFFIDAVIT
That I Partha Roy, son of late Provat Samir Roy do
hereby affirm that I am the complainant no.2 above named and the Constituted
Attorney of my only son Pandav Roy, the complainant no 1, by virtue of a
registered Power of Attorney executed by him in my favour.
That I am well and sufficiently aware of all the
facts & circumstances of this case and fully competent to depose before the
Hon’ble Commission
That I do hereby confirm that the paragraph nos.
“27” – “92” of this Amendment Application are true to my best knowledge &
belief and the rest are our humble prayers before this Hon’ble Commission.
Deponent
Advocate:
