12 June 2018
Regards I had a consumer case at state Consumer forum since 2008. On Feb 2018 the SCDRC directed the Complainants' to present before National forum due to the pecuniary Jurisdiction on account of latest SC judgment. This case is against the builder and MNC bank filed in 2008 before SCDRC for getting possession of the flat along with compensation. The Sale Deed registered on 26.6.2006 in the presence of Bank officials and instead of Bank collecting it from RO, the Builder collected it and hand it over to me along with the Builders Agreement on 4.7.2006 which was submitted on 6.7.2006 and the bank took signatory in the Mortgage Book. When asked for the acknowledgement the bank said at the time of final disbursement the acknowledgement will be given. The final disbursement was made on 27.7.2006 in my absence and only welcome letter received and not the documents acknowledgement. When approached the bank, the officer asked to send email to customer care and a reply was received that since the bank follows oral mortgage the bank does not give any written acknowledgement. The EMI started immediately from August 2006. But during the handing over of possession on April 2008 by the Builder, the bank wrote to the Builder not to handover the Possession on pretext of non submission of Sale Deed marking a copy to me.The letter was issued when my EMI is being honoured promptly. Sensing the conspiracy of the Builder and bank I issued legal reply agreeing to deposit the documents viz Copy Sale Deed as per law and ready to create a registered Mortgage at my cost. The Bank did not replied nor accepted the suggestion hence I filed a case in SCDRC on 13.8.2008. I was honouring my EMI regularly and during Feb 2009 the bank took symbolic possession without issuing any letter nor there was any default. The symbolic possession was taken by putting the name of the bank in the flat. I raised complaint immediately on Feb 2009 and I wrote letters till August 2009 in spite of honouring the EMI. There was no replies nor any resolution to my complaint then i suspended the EMI from Sept 2009 by duly informing through a letter dated 15.8.2009. Exactly after three month during Dec2009 I received loan recall notice which was replied mentioning that Iam ready to close the loan account as per loan recall notice. As usual no reply received and during July 2010 received a SARFAESI notice under sec 13(2), accepting the deposit of title deed and a legal reply was sent that Iam ready to close the loan account. There was no reply to that also. This all happened in spite of the proceedings in SCDRC where the Builder and bank was continuously absent and my prayers for exparte was not respected and the proceedings were only going by FS. The bank file his vakalat on 26.08.2010 and the Builder was declared exparte which the Builder moved NCDRC in May 2013 and by paying penalty he joined the proceedings. The bank moved DRT under RDDB FI ACT under OA in March 2013 and I filed all the documents in original and the bank only dragged the proceedings and ultimately during September 2017 the judgment was reserved and it's pending to be pronounced till date. At present the Possession is with the Bank repossessed without following the mandatory rules laid down by the law. Without taking to the course of paper possession and notice under sec 13(4) . The construction was also left incomplete and the Advocate commission report of SCDRC is obtained. I had filed all the DRT papers and documents along with the consumer petition. I had moved the NCDRC as per the directions of SCDRC and while on admission I was asked to prove how consumer case is maintInable when SARFAESI proceedings are going on. I will argue by placing section 3 of the consumer protection act and proving through both, the application of the bank in DRT and the petition of Consumer that the prayers in both differs and hence there is no overriding effect. Please guide if you have any judgment on this and with any other material to be helpful in arguments for admission.