Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/322/2019

1.Repco Home Finance Ltd., Rep by its Authorized Officer, 3rd Floor, Alexender Square, New No.2, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. And Another - Complainant(s)

Versus

1.S.Prakash, S/o. Subramaniam, No.59, Pavin Illam, Mariamman Koil III Street, T.G.Nagar, Veerakesala - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. A.Illangovan

25 Nov 2022

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

                               BEFORE :       Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. SUBBIAH                              PRESIDENT

                                            Thiru R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                               MEMBER

                        

F.A.NO.322/2019

(Against order in CC.NO.59/2018 on the file of the DCDRC, Tiruppur)

 

DATED THIS THE 25^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022

 

1.     Repco Home Finance Ltd.,

        Rep. by its Authorised Officer

        Corporate Office

        3^rd Floor, Alexander Square

        New No.2, Sardar Patel Road

        Guindy, Chennai – 00 032

 

2.     Repco Home Finance Ltd.,

         Rep. by the Branch Manager Selvam                     M/s. A. Ilangovan

        Harini Center, 1^st Floor                                             Counsel for

        Khaderpet, Tirupur                                              Appellants / Opposite parties

 

                                                         Vs.

1.       S. Prakash

          S/o. Subramaniam

          No.59, Pavin Illam

          Mariamman Koil III Street

          T.G.Nagar, Veerakeralam

          Coimbatore – 7

 

2.       Tmt. V. Logeshwari

          W/o S. Prakash

          No.59, Pavin Illam

          Mariamman Koil III Street                                  M/s.N.Ishtiaq Ahmed

          T.G.Nagar, Veerakeralam                                         Counsel for

          Coimbatore – 7                                            Respondent/ Complainant

 

          The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite parties praying for certain direction. The District Commission allowed the complaint. Against the said exparte order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite parties praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt.22.8.2019 in CC.No.59/2018.

 

          This petition coming before us for hearing finally today.  Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing on bothsides, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Commission, this commission made the following order in the open court:

 

 

JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH ,  PRESIDENT  (Open court)

 

1.      The opposite parties before the District Commission are the appellants herein.

 

2.    The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party for obtaining housing loan.  The complainant had informed the 2^nd opposite party that they already obtained loan from LIC to the tune of Rs.12,00,000/-, and requested the 2^nd opposite party to sanction additional loan of Rs.13,00,000/- by taking over the existing loan from LIC and grant loan for Rs.25,00,000/-.  At the first instance though the 2^nd opposite party had agreed to sanction Rs.2500000/- as housing loan, subsequently insisted the complainant to remit Rs.12,00,000/- so that they could sanction the loan.  Inspite of receiving the processing fee of Rs.27930/- and a further sum of Rs.30000/-, the opposite parties have failed to sanction loan as requested.  Due to which the complainant had to forgo the booking advance of Rs.5,00,000/- paid to their vendor.  Thus alleging negligence on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed complaint before the District Commission praying for refund of the processing fee, and the additional fee collected alongwith interest and also prayed to refund Rs.5 lakhs apart from compensation and cost.

 

3.       The   Appellants/ opposite parties though appeared through counsel before the District Commission, and also filed their  version,  have failed to file their proof affidavit, hence an exparte order was passed in favour of the Respondent/ complainant,  directing the opposite parties to refund Rs.27930/- alongwith 7% interest and compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and cost of Rs.10000/-. 

 

4.       The learned counsel for the appellants/ opposite parties had submitted in their version that the previous owner of the property, which the complainant opted to purchase, had already deposited the title deeds of the property, and created a registered equitable mortgage.  Therefore, the previous owner has to obtain discharge receipt being executed by LIC Housing finance and the original documents being made available, so that a valid equitable mortgage can be created.   Moreover the LIC Housing finance had initiated proceedings under SARFAESI Act against the said property.  There is no deficiency in service on their part.

 

5.       The District Commission by holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties had allowed the complaint and thus directed the appellants/ opposite parties to refund Rs.27930/- alongwith 7% interest  alongwith compensation and cost.  Aggrieved over the said over, the opposite parties have filed this appeal as appellants.

 

6.       The Appellants/ opposite parties would contend that the non-filing of proof affidavit is neither willful nor wanton.  They are having a fair chance of succeeding the case.  Thus prayed for an opportunity to contest the case on merit.

7.       Having considered the submissions made, we are of the considered opinion that there is some force in the submission of the appellants/ opposite parties and considering the fact that the complainant had diligently filed his written version, we are of the considered opinion that a chance may be given to the appellants/ opposite parties to agitate their right on merit.  Eventhough on considering the lethargic attitude of the opposite parties,  we inclined to allow this appeal on imposing certain cost, thus we have directed the appellants/ opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- towards cost to the counsel for the
Respondent, which is complied with today itself.  Hence this appeal is allowed today by remanding back the complaint to the District Commission for fresh disposal. 

 

7.       In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of  the District Commission, Thiruppur, in C.C.No.59/2018 dt.22.8.2019, and the matter is remanded back to the District Commission, Thiruppur, for fresh disposal according to law on merit.

Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission, Thiruppur on 26.12.2022, for taking further instructions, on which date itself the proof affidavit of the appellants/ opposite parties alongwith documents if any shall be filed.  The District Commission is directed to dispose of the complaint, within three months, according to law on merit.   

The amount deposited, by the appellants, shall remain in the custody of this commission, till the order passed in original complaint, on merit.

 

 

   R VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                               R. SUBBIAH

                 MEMBER                                                                             PRESIDENT