The court confirmed no deficiency in service by the financial institution, upholding the dismissal of the complainant's claims due to lack of evidence and obligations under the One Time Settlement.

O R D E R

R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT

This appeal has been filed as against the order dated 22.05.2023 in C.C.No.182 of 2022 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (South), dismissing the complaint filed by the appellant herein.

2. The case of the complainant is that at the request of the complainant, the 1^st opposite party sanctioned a housing loan of Rs.50 lakhs vide their sanction letter dated 05.10.2012 in the name of his son Mr.S.Sriram as borrower, the complainant and the complainant’s wife Vijayakumari as co-borrowers. As security for repayment of the said loan, the complainant created an equitable mortgage of his property situated at Plot No.10, Bhagyam Green Meadow, Annai Indira Gandhi Nagar, 1^st Cross Street, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai by way of Memorandum of Deposit of title deeds dated 08.10.2012, vide Doc.No.5636/2012 on the file of SRO, Neelankarai. The loan amount of Rs.50 lakhs is repayable at Equated Monthly Instalment of Rs.62,769/- p.m., for a period of 180 months. In the loan sanction letter dated 05.10.2012, under Clause 19, the 1^st opposite party had mentioned that the borrower is liable to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards processing and administrative fees. The complainant had also paid the said amount. The Manager of the 1^st opposite party, Headquarters at Ashok Nagar branch, where the loan was initially sanctioned and released, informed the complainant that a sum of Rs.25,000/- would be refunded to him since he had approached the opposite party for loan on seeing the publicity made in the Media by them. A letter to that effect was also obtained from the complainant. But the said amount was not credited to his account. Only while going through the Account Statement given to him at the time of closing the liability, the complainant found that the said amount of Rs.25,000/- has not been credited to his account, inspite of his written claim and oral requests. The said act of not crediting the assured amount, clearly exhibits the deficiency and negligence in service on the part of the opposite parties while dealing with the customer’s account, with 24% interest from the date of loan sanctioned till the amount is refunded to him. Further, the complainant found in the Account Statement dated 17.11.2020 that the opposite parties had disbursed another sum of Rs.96,668/- on 01.12.2015. But the said amount was neither credited to the complainant’s account nor was the information communicated to him. Hence, the opposite parties have no locus standi to claim the said amount or include in the settlement process. Hence, the opposite parties are liable to re-credit this amount, with 24% interest from 01.12.2015 till the date of payment to the complainant’s account. Both the said amounts were not credited to the account of the complainant even till the closure of the loan account and only then, the complainant came to know of the negligent act of the opposite parties. Hence, the complainant sent a letter dated 01.12.2020 by registered post, calling upon the opposite parties to refund both the amounts with interest @ 12.85%. The opposite parties neither responded nor chose to send a reply to the said letter. The mortgaged property was purchased by the complainant on 18.07.2012 using his own funds and only subsequently the housing loan of Rs.50 lakhs was sanctioned by the opposite parties and credited to the Savings Bank account of the complainant. Although the complainant informed the opposite parties that the repayment of loan would be made from the rental income, salary of the complainant’s wife and agricultural income, the same was not accepted. The opposite parties treated the complainant’s son as the main borrower, who was working in ‘Nokia’. The monthly EMI was