Andhra Pradesh

Nellore

CC/90/2014

Pathapati Venkata Lakshminarayana - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. The Chairman India Info Line Finance Ltd(Housing) - Opp.Party(s)

G.V.Ravi

12 Feb 2016

ORDER

                                                             Date of filing       :  01-10-2014

                                                             Date of disposal  :   12-02-2016

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

           :: NELLORE ::

                                                       

 Friday, this the  12th  day of  FEBRUARY, 2016.

 

          PRESENT:  Sri M.Subbarayudu Naidu, B.Com.,B.L., LL.M.        

                                      President(FAC)& Member

                                      Sri N.S.Kumara Swamy, B.Sc., LL.B., Member

                             

                                          C.C.No.90/2014

 

Pathapati Venkata Lakshminarayana,

S/o.Late Bhaskar Rao,

Aged about 40 years, Govt. Teacher,

Mutyalapadu Village, Near Kanaka Durga Temple,

Lingasamudram Mandalam,

Prakasam District.                                                 …         Complainant

 

                      Vs.

                                                                            

1. The Chairman,

India Info Line Finance Ltd (Housing)

I.I.F.Centra, Karnala City,

Senapathi Bapath MArg,

Lower Parel, Mumbai – 013.

 

2. The Manager (Housing),

I.I.F.L.Main branch (India Info line Finance Ltd.)

Chennai.

 

3. The Manager,

Regional Office, (India Info line Finance Ltd.)

I.I.F.L.Vijayawada.

 

4. The Branch Manager,

I.I.F.L.Trunk Road,

Kavali Town,

S.P.S.R.Nellore District.                              …            Opposite parties

 

This matter coming on   10-02-2016   before us for final hearing in the presence of Sri G.V.Ravi, Advocate for the complainant and  Sri D.Dhamareswar, Advocate for the  opposite parties and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum passed the following:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

ORDER                                                                                                                                                                                                                          (BY SRI M.SUBBARAYUDU NAIDU, PRESIDENT (FAC) ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH)

 

This consumer case is filed by the complainant against the opposite parties 1 to 4 to direct them to handover all the documents of the complainant  namely; a) Original agreement dated 28-08-2012; b)linked documents –site property c) indemnity bond Rs.20/- d) signature  verification certificate SBI e)Post paid cheques Sl.Nos.427001 to 4270050; f)I.T. returns; g)  Home Loan agreement (notarized) and h)Position certificate by MRO;  to pay agreement amount of Rs.2,00,000/-,  the processing fee of Rs.7,000/- and the other expenses of Rs.25,000/- which were lost by the complainant due to deceivable promises and assurances given by the opposite party nos.1 to 4 with regard to sanctioning of the home loan; to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages, time loss and mental agony due to deficiency in service and negligence of the opposite parties  and also to grant costs of Rs.5,000/- and pass such other relief or reliefs as the Hon’ble Consumer Forum may deemed it fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in the interests of the justice.

 

The factual matrix leading to filing of this consumer case is as stated as hereunder:

I. (a)It is the case of the complainant that he is a Govt. teacher in Peddapavani Village of Linga Samudram Mandal since 12 years.  His parents are having own house and landed properties in his native place.  He is getting salary of  Rs.30,000/- per month. Under the said circumstances, with an intention to get his own independent house, on perusal of the offers published through pamphlet and paper advertisement by the opposite parties, he (the complainant) is attracted to the housing loan scheme which proposed by opposite parties 1 to 4.  The 1^st opposite party is the Main Head Office of the finance company and used to monitor and administrate the finance business in different States under name and style of “INDIA INFO LINE FINANCE LTD(Housing).”  As a part of their finance business,  the opposite parties have started  one branch at Kavali Town and whose manager is added as 4^th opposite party herein.  The Regional Branch of the above said Finance Co. is situated at Vijayawada and the controller of Main Branch at Chennai.

 

(b)     It is also further submitted by the complainant in para-4 of his complaint that  when he had approached the branch finance office at Kavali, the said branch manager had stated to him that their company will provide loan very quickly and most liberally for lesser interest rate than all the nationalized banks.  So, the fourth opposite party had given oral assurance to him that their finance co. is very trustworthy and they are doing finance business even in foreign countries. Then the 4^th opposite party asked the complainant to bring all the concerned documents to apply for the loan.  Thereafter, the complainant had brought all the documents such as a) Original agreement of sale deed dated  28-08-2012; b) the Xerox copies of the Link documents of the house site – property; c) the indemnity bond of Rs.20/- containing the signature of the complainant with notarization; d) Signature verification certificate issued by the Manager, SBI, Kavali; e) Possession certificate issued by MRO; f) the approval certificate issued by VRO of Muthyalapadu; f) the post-dated empty cheques of SBI, Kavali with a Sl.Nos.427001 to 427050 containing the signatures of the complainant and f) home loan agreement kit having the signatures of the complainant and his wife (notarized) and also I.T.returns of the complainant are  handed over  to the 4^th opposite party in his office, Kavali. Then, he filled up the application and enclosed all the above stated documents and with the signatures of the complainant received on several papers and the application and other connected papers.  Subsequently, the opposite parties allotted no.700806 as home loan application and loan account number through a phone message on 26-4-2013 – 0120-475492.  The opposite parties had collected Rs.7,000/- even prior to allotment of loan number to the complainant as the processing fee without his consent by taking the advantage of the above stated empty cheques (filled up cheque number 427001) in their possession. 

 

 c)It is also further submitted by the complainant in paras-5 and 6 of his complaint that  the opposite parties had orally stated to him that the amount of the loan will be about Rs.13,00,000/- and it will be handover to him through cheque.  The opposite parties 1 to 4,  after completion of all formalities and they themselves without his knowledge they paid some amount to the insurance company in his name under three categories namely home insurance, risk insurance and sick insurance.  The remaining loan amount of Rs.11,79,414-85ps. sent to the 4^th opposite party from his superior officer in the name of Appisetty Ramalakshmamma and others through D.D.No.#516880 dated 03-04-2013 who are the vendors of the house and site to the complainant.  It is filed as document herein for kind perusal and to treat its contention as part and parcel of complaint. The complainant had approached the office of 4^th opposite party with regard to the loan several times and each time he was convinced by the branch manager that the file of the complainant is not clear from the head office of opposite parties 1, 2 and 3.  The complainant wandered around the office of the opposite parties about several times to get the loan amount but they had been demanding him to get the registered sale deed as per their will and wish and as far as demanded by them.  Thereafter, the complainant had stated that to OP No.4 that in his village there is no such huge Govt. value to the house and site purchased by him and its vendors Ramalakshmamma and others are also stated that they are ready to execute the registered sale deed in his favour as for the Govt. value in that area.  He had also requested the opposite parties several times to finalize his house loan but the opposite parties demanded him to get the registered sale deed as desired by them. 

 

 d)  It is also further submitted that in paras 7 and 8 of his complaint that he had asked the 4^th opposite party to return all his original documents which are received by him but he had been postponing that he has to get permission from Ops 1 to 3.  Then, he had approached the 4^th opposite party several times to get his documents but he did not return the same since more than 6 months.  So, the complainant got issued legal notice to all the Ops 1 to 4 on 23-04-2013 and the same was received by them, but not responded properly.  The above said legal notice is filed herewith for its kind perusal by the Hon’ble Consumer Forum.  Thereafter, the complainant had waited more than one year and having no other for him he was constrained   to file this complaint before the Hon’ble Consumer Forum.  The opposite parties had behaved very negligently and resorted to unfair business policies to promote their finance business.  Because of their deficiency in service, the complainant is unable to buy a house and when the costs of houses and house plots are very low and forced to lost the agreement amount of Rs.2,00,000/- by believing the words of the opposite parties and he was also lost valuable time and incurred several expenses.

 

e)  There are causes of action to file this complaint are narrated in para-9 of the complaint.  Hence, the complaint.

 

II.  DEFENCE:

 The written version/counter is filed by the opposite party No.4

 1)The complaint was resisted by the 4^th opposite party by denying the allegations of the complainant in his complaint by filing its written version on 1-6-2015.  The memo filed by the opposite parties 1 to 3 by adopting the written version/counter of opposite party No.4. The complaint is not maintainable either in Law or on facts.  The complainant is put to strict proof of his allegations.

 

2)It is further submitted by the 4^th opposite party that in para-3 of its written version/counter that the material facts of the case are not denied.  It is false to state that the complainant had submitted post-dated empty cheques of SBI, Kavali.  It is also false to state that the complainant had approached the office of the 4^th opposite party with regard to his house loan several times and asked them to return all his documents which are received by him.

 

3)It is also further submitted that in para-6 of its written version/counter that the complainant had submitted an agreement of  sale said to have purchased by him from his vendors for Rs.18,00,000/-.  Basing on his  agreement of sale, the opposite parties have sanctioned loan to him for Rs.13,00,000/- and send cheque for Rs.11,79,414-85 paise in the name of his vendors of the complainant  after deducting the necessary expenses and insurance amount. They had also informed to the complainant that they will sanctioned house loan upto 80% of the value of the property and accordingly sanctioned Rs.13,00,000/- considering the sale consideration mentioned in the agreement of sale submitted by him.

4) The opposite parties had further submitted that though Housing loan was sanctioned to the complainant for Rs.13,00,000/- but he was intended to get registered sale deed for only Rs.6,00,000/-.  The value of property should be more than Rs.16,00,000/-.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties towards the complainant.  He had failed to get registered sale deed from his vendors for a value mentioned in the agreement of sale.  The complainant has to pay damages for causing inconvenience and waste of time to the opposite parties.  The opposite parties are even today to ready sanction loan to the complainant 80% of the property value.  The complainant had filed the complaint with false and frivolous allegations against the opposite parties.  There are no merits in the complaint and he is not a consumer.  It is therefore prayed that the Hon’ble Consumer Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with costs.

 

III.  The complainant had filed an affidavit as PW1 on 04-08-2015 and also documents which are marked as Exs.A1 to A10 whereas the opposite party No.4 has also filed his chief-affidavit as (RW1) through Sk.Mohammad Shareef of Kavali Town and also document which is marked as Ex.B1.  The written arguments of the case of the complainant had filed on 15-09-2015 and the written arguments of the opposite parties had also filed on 17-11-2015 in support of their case.

 

IV.   Basing on the material available on the record, the points that arise for determination are namely:-

 

(a)Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite

    parties towards the complainant?

(b)Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as

    prayed for, if it is so, to what extent?

         (c) To what relief?

 

V.  POINTS 1 AND 2 :

 

     In view of these two points are inter-related and depends on each other, they have been taken up together for discussion and determination of the case.  The complainant has once again reiterated the facts of the case, basing on the complaint and documents filed herein.    It is nothing but repetition of them once again in his complaint.

 

Oral Submissions by the learned counsel for the complainant:

         Sri Dr.G.V.Ravi, learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that the complainant had approached the 4^th opposite party who is the branch manager for housing loan and the said manager had offered him the loan process was very simple, low interest rates and less process fee etc.  He has also further argued that the 4^th opposite party gave oral assurance to the complainant and insisted him to bring all the necessary documents to process the said loan.  The complainant had filled up application and enclosed all the said documents and then the opposite party had received the signatures of the complainant on several papers of the application and allotted No.700866 as home loan application account.  The above said opposite party(opposite party No.4) had collected Rs.7,000/- even prior to allotment of loan number to the complainant and obtained, as processing fee and without his consent, received empty cheques (filled up cheque no.427001).

 

   The said learned counsel for the complainant has further contended that 4^th opposite party had orally stated to the complainant that loan amount will be about Rs.13,00,000/- and it will be handed over to him through cheque.  But, after completion of all formalities by the 4^th opposite party, without his knowledge, paid some amounts to the Insurance Company in his name under the said different heads of insurance.  The remaining loan amount of Rs.11,79,441-85 Ps. sent to 4^th opposite party from his superior officers, in the name of Appisetty Ramalakshmamma and others through D.D.No.#516880 dt.3-4-2013 who are the vendors of the house and site to the complainant.  Thereafter, the complainant had approached office of 4^th opposite party with regard to the said loan amount on several occasions and each time 4^th opposite party convinced him, it is not cleared from the head office of opposite parties.  The opposite parties are demanding the complainant to get registered sale deed as per their wish and he is always ready to get it from his vendors and the government value of that area, his vendors are ready to get register sale deed.  He has also asked the 4^th opposite party to finalize his housing loan.  As he was unable, to satisfy the untenable and abnormal requirements of the opposite parties and he asked 4^th opposite party to return all his documents.  But the 4^th opposite party had postponed returning them, inspite of demands made by the complainant since more than one year.  Then, he got issued legal notice dt.23-04-2013 to all the opposite parties but not sent any reply by the opposite parties.  By believing the words of 4^th opposite party, the agreement amount of Rs.2,00,000/- paid by the complainant and handed over his said post-dated cheques to 4^th opposite party to obtain house loan.  Finally, the said learned counsel for the complainant has further argued that there is a deficiency in service and negligence on the part of opposite parties towards the complainant.  It is therefore prayed that the Hon’ble Consumer Forum may be pleased to allow the complaint as prayed for.  

 

  Oral Submissions by the learned counsel for the opposite parties:

        Sri D.Dhamareswar, the learned counsel for the opposite parties                             has also vehemently argued that the complainant himself had approached opposite parties for housing loan and submitted an agreement of sale deed   28-08-2012 with necessary documents and said empty cheques.  He has also further argued that an application for the said house loan and issued a cheque bearing no.427001 for Rs.7,000/- by the complainant for verification charges.  There is no dispute with regard to material facts of the case between them.

 

     In the process of oral arguments on behalf of the opposite parties, he has also further contended that Ex.B1 is market value assistance may be read as part and parcel of his arguments and its market value of the property is Rs.7,86,870/-.  Further, it is also argued by him that the opposite parties had informed to the complainant that the value of property should be more than Rs.16,00,000/-.  The complainant had failed to get it registered sale deed from his vendors for a value mentioned in the above said agreement of sale.  He had produced the said agreement of sale for higher value of the property than the actual value.  The opposite parties are now ready to sanction of housing loan to the complainant, 80% of the said property value.  He had filed the complaint to get wrongful gain and to harass the opposite parties.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties towards the complainant.  There are no merits of the case of the complainant.  So, it is prayed that the Hon’ble Consumer Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with costs.

 

Forum’s Findings and observations

  

    Heard, the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record very carefully.  The parties led their evidence by way of their affidavits and documents.  Oral arguments of them, are advanced in support of the case.  Primarily, “He who seeks equity from the Forums/Court must come with clean hands”.

       The crucial point is that whether the opposite parties are handled the complainant with correct facts before sanctioning the housing loan to him.  The procedure adopted by the opposite parties in sanctioning the said housing loan to the complainant is valid or not? It is to be considered in view of the facts of the case explained with documentary evidence by us.

 

Documentary evidence:

      First of all, there is no dispute between the parties with regard to material facts of the case.  By reiterating the facts of the case on the side of complainant, the learned counsel for the complainant issued regd. legal notice dt.22-04-2013(Ex.A1) to the opposite parties (with postal receipts).  Ex.A2 is describing the contents of the statement of account of complainant (SBI, Kavali) Proved the fact that an amount of Rs.7,000/- dt.23-02-2013 withdrawn by the 4^th opposite party; Exs.A3 to A6 are  relating to the home and various insurance policies issued in the name of the complainant by the opposite parties; Exs.7 to 10 are relating  to  SMS messages to the complainant by the opposite parties. 

 

     By observing the facts and circumstances of this Consumer Case, it is crystal clear that the 4^th opposite party after collecting Rs.7,000/- dated   23-2-2013 (Ex.A2) from the complainant  as processing fee and obtaining the alleged cheques from him to grant housing loan to him and also deducting insurance premium for different insurance such items without his consent, are appears to be arbitrary and not valid on the part of the opposite parties.

 

 REASONS FOR THE ORDER:

       Having, received the required documents from the complainant and withholding, without disbursing the alleged housing loan to the complainant, inspite of  several demands to handover them to him, are clearly appears to be with an naked eye, are amounts to deficiency in service and negligence of the opposite parties. Keeping, the relevant documents of the complainant with the opposite parties, without disbursing the housing loan on various reasons as the case may be, more than a year with them are also, clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties towards the complainant.

 

AWARD OF COMPENSATION:

   The word ‘compensation’ is of a very wide connotation It may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extend to compensation for physical, mental or even national sufferings insult or injury or loss.  The Consumer Protection Act enables a consumer to claim and empower the Commission or the Forum is entitled to award not only value of goods or services but also to compensate a consumer for injustice suffered by him.  The Commission/Forum must determine that such sufferance is due to malafide or capricious or oppressive act.  It can then determine amount for which the authority is liable to compensate the consumer for his sufferance due to misfeasance in public office by the officers.  Such, compensation is for vindicating the strength of Law.  It acts as a check on arbitrary and capricious exercise of power.  It helps in curing social evil.  It will hopefully result in improving the work, culture and in changing the outlook of the officer/public servant.  No authority can arrogate to itself the power to act in a manner which is arbitrary.  Matters which require immediate attention should not be allowed to linger on.  The Consumer must not be made to run from pillar to post. Where there has been capricious or arbitrary or negligent exercise or non-exercise of power by an officer of the authority, the Commission/Forum is satisfied that a complainant is entitled to compensation for loss or injury or for harassment or mental agony or oppression, then after recording a finding it must direct the authority to pay compensation and then also direct recovery from those found responsible for such un-pardonable behavior.

 

       When the things are not materialized due to various reasons for not granting housing loan, it is the obligation of the opposite parties to return the original documents to the complainant.  The question of deducting insurance premium for various insurance policies as alleged by the opposite parties in the name of the complainant, in advance as if they are sanctioning the housing loan to the complainant, is not correct.  By keeping the alleged amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant by the opposite parties at the time of agreement  paid by him, is totally unjustified. It can be said that there is a deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the opposite parties towards the complainant.  Mental agony of the complainant cannot be measured in terms of money. 
There is a force in the contentions of the complainant.  We are convinced with the oral arguments of the complainant.   The documentary proof (Exs.A1 to A10) is clearly established the case of the complainant.  When the Ex.B1 is clearly describes the value of the property below and it is not sufficient to grant housing loan to the complainant, the opposite parties are supposed to be immediately, return the above said relevant documents to the complainant.  These two points are held in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties, accordingly.

 

 

 

 

POINT No.3: In the result, the complaint is allowed in-part ordering the opposite parties 1 to 4 jointly and severally are liable to  the complainant to handover all his documents which are narrated in para no.4 of his complaint namely: (1) Original Agreement dated 28-8-2012; (2)Link documents site property; (3) Indemnity bond Rs.20/-; (4) Signature verification certificate SBI; (5)Post paid cheques S.No.427001 to 4270050; (6)I.T.Returns; (7)Home Loan Agreement (notarized); (8)Possession Certificate by M.R.O.; to pay the agreement amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) and also pay to him a processing fee of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees seven thousand only) and other expenses of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only); to pay him of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards costs of the complaint within  one month from the date of receipt of the order from the Hon’ble Consumer Forum.  The point is ordered accordingly.

 

Typed to the dictation to the stenographer and corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum this the 12th day of FEBRUARY, 2016.    

 

              Sd/-                                                                           Sd/-

         MEMBER                                                                 PRESIDENT(FAC)

  APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR COMPLAINANT:

 

PW1

04-08-2015

:

Pathapati Venkata Lakshmi Narayana S/o.Late Bhaskar Rao, aged about 40 years, working as Govt. teacher, Mutyalapadu village, Lingasamudram Mandal, Prakasam District.

 

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES:

 

RW1

02-09-2015

:

Sk.Mohammad Shareef, S/o.Mahaboob Vasha, Muslim, aged 29 years, resident of Pathuru, Kavali Town, S.P.S.Nellore District.

                                                                               

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR COMPLAINANT:

 

Ex.A1	22-04-2013	:	Office copy of the registered legal notice along with postal receipts (four in nos.).
Ex.A2	23-02-2013	:	Photostat copy of the bank statement to show that the opposite parties encashed Rs.7,000/-.
Ex.A3	11-04-2013	:	Photostat copy of home insurance policy.
Ex.A4	11-04-2013	:	The ICICI Lombard general insurance “Home Safe Plus-Home insurance papers.
Ex.A5	11-04-2013	:	The ICICI Lombard general insurance “Risk Assumption Letter papers”.
Ex.A6	11-04-2013	:	The ICICI Lombard general insurance “Home Safe Plus – Secure Mind Policy papers.
Ex.A7	03-05-2013	:	Computerized print of Inbox SMS  message.
Ex.A8	30-04-2013	:	Computerized print of Inbox SMS  message.
Ex.A9	27-04-2013	:	Computerized print of Inbox SMS  message.
Ex.A10	26-04-2013	:	Computerized print of Inbox SMS  message.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES:                      

 

Ex.B1	09-10-2015	:	Market Value Assistance Certificate issued by Joint Sub Registrar, Singarayakonda.

 

          Id/-                                                                                     PRESIDENT(FAC)

 

 

Copies to:

 

1. Sri Dr.G.V.Ravi, Advocate, Nellore.
2. Sri Dhamareswar, Advocate, Room No.11, 1^st floor, SVS Complex, Madrasbusstand, Nellore.

          

 

Date when order copies are issued: