IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

Present:Hon’ble THIRU. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH: PRESIDENT F.A. No. 114 of 2021 [Against the orderdated 18.01.2018 passed in C.C.No.129 of 2012 by the D.C.D.R.C.,Chennai (South)].

WEDNESDAY, THE 29^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 The Citi Bank N.A. (Now known as Axis Bank), Rep. by its Manager, 2^nd Floor, Door No.31, Old No.14, South Mada Street, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.

(Amended vide Order dated 26.07.2024 In CMP.No.625/2024). ...Appellant/Opposite Party.

- Vs –

PR. Karuppiah, Flat No.3, Krishna Villa, No.11/2, (Old No.8), Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014. ...Respondent/Complainant Counsel for the Appellant/O.P. :M/s.M. Arunachalam.

For the Respondent/Complainant :Notice served.

This appeal came up for final hearing on 08.01.2025, and on hearing the arguments of the learned Counsel for the Appellant/Opposite Party and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following:-

ORDER

THIRU. R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT This appeal has been filed as against the order dated

18.01.2018 passed in C.C.No.129 of 2012by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (South), allowing the complaint filed by the Respondent herein, in part.

2. The Appellant herein is the opposite party and the Respondent herein is the complainant before the District Consumer Commission. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to in the course of this order, as per their respective rankings before the District Commission.

3. The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that he and his son Mr. K. Bramanathan had availed a Housing Loan of Rs.45,00,000/- from the opposite party bank under Loan A/c.No.420890, which is repayable in 120 equated monthly instalments of Rs.68,523/- each. For which, they had created an Equitable Mortgage by depositing the title deed of their House Property at Flat No.3, Krishna Villa, Door No.11/2 (Old No.8), Pertho Street, Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014. Initially, the complainant paid the monthly EMI regularly. Thereafter, due to Global Economic Meltdown during 2009, the complainant’s software business was affected, he sustained huge losses and consequently defaulted in paying the EMI from Feb, 2009. He wrote several letters to the opposite party explaining the economic crisis and requested them to rework on the EMI and reduce the EMI and to extend the period, but, they failed to respond to any of the correspondences. On the other hand, the opposite party issued a notice dated 28.04.2009 u/s.13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI Act). The said notice was replied by the complainant vide letter dated 08.06.2009 in which he requested the opposite party to reduce the rate of interest and extend the term of repayment. Again, the complainant sent a letter dated 30.12.2009 undertook to pay the outstanding arrears in a time schedule. Accordingly, on 30.12.2009, he paid Rs.2,05,569/- towards EMI for the months of February, March and April, 2009. On 13.02.2010, he paid Rs.1,37,046/- towards EMI for the month of May and June, 2009. Further, on 17.03.2010, he had arranged a D.D. for Rs.2,05,569/- towards the EMI for the month of July, August and September, 2009. In the meantime, the opposite party had initiated proceedings under SARFAESI Act and had also taken physical possession of the residential flat on 17.03.2010. The complainant had negotiated with the opposite party to clear the entire outstanding arrears of instalments as on 18.03.2010 in the Loan Account and in terms of the said settlement, the opposite party handed over the possession of the residential flat back to the complainant on 18.03.2010 and issued a receipt of Rs.10,50,001/-. According to the statement of accounts furnished by the opposite party and the payments made by the complainant, the total overdue amounts to an outstanding sum of Rs.6,16,707/- as on 18.03.2010 which represents nine defa