IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

Present: Hon’ble THIRU JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH : PRESIDENT F.A. No. 316 of 2019 [Against the order passed in C.C. No.13 of 2016 dated 12.10.2018 on the file of the D.C.D.R.F.,Thiruvallur-1]

Wednesday, the 30^th day of October 2024

1. Mr.Munusamy Naidu S/o. Ramakrishna Naidu No.11, Railway Station Road Ponneri, Thiruvallur District.

Smt.Sumathi (Deceased)

W/o.Munusamy Naidu

2. Mrs. Dhivya D/o.Munusamy Naidu

3. Mrs. M.Nirosha D/o.Munusamy Naidu

4. Ms. M.Monica D/o.Munusamy Naidu Appellants 2 to 4/LRs of 2nd complainant are residing at No.11, Railway Station Road Ponneri, Thiruvallur District. .. Appellants/

Complainants - Vs -

1. The Branch Manager M/s. Indian Overseas Bank Thiruvottiyur High Road Ponneri, Thiruvallur District.

2. The Regional Manager Indian Overseas Bank 342, Sri Krishna Plaza First Floor, RTO Road Phase-1, Sathuvacheri Vellore – 632 009.

3. The Chief Manager Indian Overseas Bank Head Office, 703 Anna Salai Chennai – 600 002. .. Respondents/

Opposite Parties Counsel for Appellants/Complainants : M/s. K.Balaji Counsel for the Respondents/

Opposite Parties : M/s. Sheela Venkatesh This appeal came up for final hearing on 12.04.2024 and, on hearing the arguments of the counsel for the appellants and the counsel for the respondents and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following:-

O R D E R

R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT This appeal has been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as against the order dated 12.10.2018 in C.C.No.13 of 2016 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thiruvallur-1, dismissing the complaint filed by the appellants herein.

2. The case of the complainants is that they are valid customers of the 1^st opposite party Bank. The 1^st complainant availed two housing loans in Loan A/c No.270300009 and A/c No. 270400001 by hypothecating properties and depositing the title deeds. He also availed educational loan in A/c No.290500006. He borrowed another loan for imbedding agriculture pipe line in A/C No.320400883 and a crop loan in A/c No.320700011. Subsequently, by pledging jewels the 1^st complainant borrowed a loan in Gold Loan A/c No.431200921. Altogether the 1^st complainant had borrowed a total sum of Rs.17,61,000/- from the 1^st opposite party. Similarly, the wife of the 1^st complainant, deceased Sumathi, who was the 2^nd complainant in the complaint, borrowed loan for imbedding pipeline in the name of agriculture pipe line in A/C No.320500009 and a crop loan in A/c No.320700012. She also borrowed gold loan by pledging jewels in Gold Loan A/c No.431200922. Altogether the wife of the 1^st complainant had borrowed a total sum of Rs.6,70,000/- from the 1^st opposite party. Out of the said loans the complainants have made repayment to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/-. Whileso, the 1^st opposite party by imposing compound interest for the said loans, had claimed more than Rs.30,00,000/-. After sending demand notices the 1^st opposite party threatened the complainant that if the said amount is not paid, the properties will be auctioned and if the complainants come forward for one time settlement, the proceedings will be stopped. With a fond hope that the entire loans on various heads including the gold loan will be discharged, the complainants accepted for settling the entire 9 loans for a sum of Rs.24,50,000/-. The complainants toiled themselves to arrange the huge amount of Rs.24,50,000/- for the one time settlement and paid the said amount to the 1^st opposite party Bank on 09.03.2015. Eventhough the total loan borrowed by both the complainants is Rs.24,31,000/-, the complainants had paid a sum of Rs.49,31,000/- till 09.03.2015. As per Banking Rules, it is mandatory that the 1^st opposite party has to return the original documents of the complainants, which have been deposited as security for the housing loans. But the 1^st opposite party has not returned the original settlement deed registered in favour of the 1^st com