BEFORE THE HONBLE DISTRICT DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION AT THIRUVANNAMALAI
C.C.NO. OF 2025
1. Baby W/oVasudevan
2. Ashwini, W/o Ramanathan
3.Yokeshwaran, S/oVasudevan …COMPLAINANT
-VS-
1. The Branch Manager, Rep by DBS Bank,
TiruvannamalaiTaluk& District
2. Cluster head, Rep by DBS Bank,
Chennai
3. The Managing Director, Rep by DBS Bank,
Mumbai …OPPOSITE PARTIES

Affidavit filed by the 1,2 and 3rd complainant

We, 1.Baby W/o. Vasudevan, 2. Ashwini W/o. Ramanathan, 3.
Yikeshwaran, are residing at No-399-B, Om Sakthi Nagar,Vengikkal village,
TiruvannamalaiTaluk, & District, do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as
follows.
1. I state that we are complainants here in and the complainants in the main
complaint. The Averments mentioned in complaint may be read as part and parcel of
this Affidavit for a complete understanding of the case.

2. I states that, I am wife of the deceased and 2 and 3 Persons are the father
of Vasudevan. The deceased, Vasudevan, was running a computer center business in
Tiruvannamalai town under the name and style of 'KVB Computer Center and Star
Data Service Center', as well as a petrol bunk business under the name 'Kannan
Agency' in Veraiyur Village.
5. My husband, Vasudevan, was also engaged in agricultural work on his
10 acres of land located in Pavithiram Village. In addition, he operated a transport
business with five mini buses under the name 'Kannan Mini Bus Service'. The
aforesaid Vasudevan owned a house bearing Door No. 399-B, 1st Street, Om Shakthi
Nagar, Vengikkal Village. In the year 2016, the owner of the house located to the
west of the aforesaid Vasudevan’s house intended to sell their property to third
parties
6. Coming to the point, Vasudevan proceeded to purchase the house
bearing Door No. 398. He negotiated with the owner, Imtath, son of Ahamed, and
they finally agreed on a sale price of Rs. 76,00,000/-. Vasudevan decided to purchase
the house in his wife's name (Baby) for their convenience, considering the enjoyment
of their previous residence.
7. "I further state that, on 17-03-2016, the aforesaid Imtath and his son
Minhajath, along with myself, entered into an unregistered agreement of sale. On the
same date, me and my husband paid a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- as advance towards the
said agreement. Out of this amount, I paid Rs. 15,50,000/- in cash and issued a
cheque bearing number 000015 for Rs. 9,50,000/- drawn on my Lakshmi Vilas Bank
account.".
8. "In this manner, the parties entered into an unregistered agreement of
sale, and I assured to conclude the contract within three months from the date of the
said agreement. The agreement of sale was typed by one Mr. Ashokan and was
drafted by a document writer named G. Gajendiran."

9. After drafting the agreement of sale, the document writer read over the
contents of the document. Upon confirming its accuracy, the complainant and the
property owners, Imtath and Minhajath, signed each page of the agreement of sale in
the presence of the attesting witnesses. The attestors, namely Vasudevan and
Devarajan, also signed the agreement in the presence of the parties to the deed. The
original of the said agreement is still in the possession of the first party to this day.
 -3-
10. I further state that my father, Vasudevan, was conducting his business
through Lakshmi Vilas Bank, Tiruvannamalai Branch, and was also transacting with
nearly five other banks. I was also engaged in the same business activities along with
my husband, and I maintain an account (No. 0741740000000152) with Lakshmi
Vilas Bank. When Vasudevan approached various banks to raise a housing loan for
purchasing the aforementioned house, several of his transacting banks expressed
willingness to sanction the loan. However, the officials at Lakshmi Vilas Bank were
particularly eager to extend the loan facility to our family due to our longstanding
business transactions and good reputation in the Tiruvannamalai area. Under these
circumstances, the complainant and my husband approached Lakshmi Vilas Bank and
applied for a loan amount of Rs. 34,80,000/- to finance the purchase of the said
house. The bank officials sanctioned the loan and issued four pay orders on 20-05-
2016, bearing numbers 995295, 995296, 995297, and 995298, totaling Rs.
34,80,000/-. On the same day, the sale deed in my favor and the mortgage deed in
favor of Lakshmi Vilas Bank were executed by the respective parties, pertaining to
the property described in the document referenced below.

11. I further state that the above loan amount of Rs. 34,80,000/- was structured
for repayment over 240 months, with a fixed monthly installment (EMI) of Rs.
35,509/-. Accordingly, Lakshmi Vilas Bank sanctioned a 20-year EMI plan for the
said loan. The complainant’s husband had been regularly paying the monthly
installments to Lakshmi Vilas Bank from the year 2016 until October 2024. In the
meantime, Lakshmi Vilas Bank was merged with Opposite Party No. 3. Even after
the said merger, Vasudevan continued to promptly pay the EMIs to the opposite party
bank without any default.
 -4-
12. On 18-10-2024, Opposite Party No. 1 issued a notice to Complainant
No. 1 stating that she had an outstanding EMI amount of Rs. 44,829.74. Upon receipt
of the notice, Complainant No. 1 immediately visited the branch office of Opposite
Party No. 1 on 29-10-2024 and paid a part amount of Rs. 36,001/- on the same day.
Subsequently, I inquired about her EMI balance details. The branch office of
Opposite Party No. 1 issued a statement of account covering the period from 01-06-
2023 to 18-11-2024 for Complainant No. 1’s account on 18-11-2024. When
Complainant No. 1 handed over the statement of account to my husband, he verified
the details and found that the loan maturity period was stated as 628 months, with the
loan maturity date mentioned as 20-01-2075. Upon noting this, my husband was
shocked and surprised by the excessive loan tenure of more than 50 years instead of
the originally agreed 20 years. He visited the bank branch of Opposite Party No. 1 on
22-11-2024 to inquire about the increased monthly installments and the extended loan
maturity period. On that day, the bank staff of Opposite Party No. 1 failed to provide
a satisfactory explanation. Distressed by this, my husband returned home in a
depressed state of mind. On 24-11-2024, at around 11:00 PM, he suffered a massive
heart attack. As he struggled to breathe, Complainant No. 1 rushed him to the
Government Medical College Hospital, where the doctors declared that he was
brought in a deceased state

13. I further state that they came to know the cause of their father’s death
was due to the incorrect statement of account issued by Opposite Party No. 1 relating
to their home loan mortgage debt. On 30-12-2024, Complainants No. 1 and 2 visited
the branch office of Opposite Party No. 1 and again inquired about the excessive
monthly EMIs on the mortgage loan. They further requested that the complainant be
provided with a statement of account covering the entire period from the date the loan
was issued up to the present date
 -5-
14. I further state that on that day, Opposite Party No. 1 issued a statement
of account covering the period from 20-05-2016 to 29-10-2024. According to the last
page of the statement, it was mentioned that Complainant No. 1 and my husband had
paid a total sum of Rs. 32,20,084.63/-, and that a balance amount of Rs. 90,22,938/-
remained outstanding. When the complainant questioned the discrepancies between
the statement of account issued by Opposite Party No. 1 on 18-11-2024 and the one
issued on 30-12-2024, the bank failed to provide a proper explanation. The
complainant’s queries were avoided, and the staff member named Naveen Kumar
repeatedly contacted Vasudevan’s cell phone and continuously threatened the
complainant in an illegal and unlawful manner. These phone conversations have been
recorded by the complainant as evidence. Due to Opposite Party No. 1’s failure to
provide a clear and accurate statement of account showing the balance EMI details
and the correct outstanding loan amount, the complainant ceased making payments
towards the housing loan mortgage. Furthermore, the complainant strongly believes
that their father’s death was caused by the erroneous statement of account issued by
Opposite Party No. 1 on 18-11-2024, and as a result, they have lost their father
Vasudevan’s unassessable assets. Additionally, Complainant No. 1 has lost her future
prospects. I further state that the deceased, Vasudevan, had pledged 12 grams of gold
finger rings to Opposite Party No. 1 bank and availed a jewel loan of Rs. 47,000/- on
26-10-2023, in Account No. 8741300000003865. I approached the bank to release
the pledged jewels upon repayment of the loan amount along with interest at the rate
of 12%. However, Opposite Party No. 1 insisted that I first pay the housing loan dues
and refused to accept the repayment of the jewel loan amount separately. On 27-01-
2025, Complainants No. 1 to 3 jointly visited Opposite Party No. 1 bank and
demanded the release of the pledged jewels upon repayment of the jewel loan
amount. Nevertheless, Opposite Party No. 1 vehemently refused to accept the jewel
loan repayment and stated that they had adjusted the jewel loan amount against the
housing loan debt."
 -6-
15. Hence, I have not paid the jewel loan debt and have repeatedly inquired
about the correct housing loan details. However, Opposite Party No. 1 has once again
insisted that I pay the housing loan dues. When Complainant No. 2 sent an email to
the officials of Opposite Party DBS Bank requesting the release of the pledged jewels
standing in the name of Vasudevan, Opposite Party No. 1 staff sent a false reply
stating that I am liable for a balance outstanding amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- relating to
the home loan debt and directed my clients to settle the same in an illegal manner. In
such circumstances, we are not in a position to settle either the housing loan debts or
the jewel loan debts. The reason for this inaction by the complainants is due to the
illegal and unlawful conduct and the false statements issued by Opposite Party No. 1.
Further, Opposite Party No. 1 alone is liable for the death of our father. Opposite
Parties No. 2 and 3 are jointly and severally liable for the illegal and unlawful
activities carried out by Opposite Party No. 1, as well as for the incorrect statements
of accounts issued from the Opposite Parties’ bank website. Opposite Parties No. 1 to
3 and DBS Bank have been arbitrarily and unlawfully attempting to collect excessive
debt from my family. Hence, the present complaint is filed against the illegal and
unlawful activities of DBS Bank, and I pray that the court directs them to act in a
proper and lawful manner to settle these issues
16. I further state that a legal notice was sent through my counsel to the
opposite parties on 30-01-2025. The opposite parties acknowledged receipt of the
legal notice and replied on 07-04-2025, after a delay of more than three months. In
their reply dated 07-04-2025, the opposite parties clearly admitted the following on
Page No. 2, Paragraph No. 4, second line: ‘Due to the merger of Lakshmi Vilas Bank
with DBS Bank, Tiruvannamalai Branch, a temporary software error occurred,
causing discrepancies in certain loan statements. DBS Bank Tiruvannamalai Branch.’
However, they further stated that the loan tenure was never unilaterally extended
beyond the agreed period of 240 months (20 years), and that the terms of the loan
remained legally binding and unchanged."
 -7-
17. I further state that the opposite parties are all held liable for deficiency in
service and negligent acts committed against me. The opposite parties are therefore
liable to pay compensation to me on the grounds of such deficiency in service."
18. We are consumers protected under the Consumer Protection Act.
However, the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service, negligence, and
unfair trade practices in their dealings with me. Therefore, the opposite parties are
liable to pay compensation to me for the damages caused.
19. I state that due to the negligence and deficiency in service committed by
the opposite parties, I have suffered loss of money and a significant waste of time. It
is clearly proven that the opposite parties are guilty of deficiency in service. I further
state that I have been subjected to unnecessary mental tension, physical harassment,
and great inconvenience as a result of their actions. The conduct of the opposite
parties amounts to unfair trade practice, and I have endured considerable mental and
physical distress due to their unfair and negligent behavior. I states that, the
complaint filed Under Section 69 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 within
two years.
20. "I am a consumer, and the opposite party has committed deficiency in
service and unfair trade practices against me."
21. "Hence, I therefore pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

i. Direct Opposite Parties 1 to 3 to provide the correct and complete

previous statements of account relating to my housing loan mortgage
debt, along with the accurate future balance due on the mortgage loan;

ii. Order the Opposite Parties to release the pledged jewels, consisting of 12
grams of gold finger rings, back to my family;
 -8-
iii. Award compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- to me towards mental agony,
torture, and pain and suffering caused by the actions of the opposite
parties;

iv. Award further compensation of Rs. 40,00,000/- towards negligent acts,

deficiency in service, and unfair trade practices committed by the
opposite parties;

v. Grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper
in the circumstances of the case."

Complaiant
Solemnly affirmed by the above deponent, who having understood the contents,
declares the same to be true, and has signed this affidavit on 10.09.2025 at
Tiruvannamalai in my presence.

Advocate