NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/2365/2010

PARDUMAN SINGH CHAWLA - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANDHRA BANK - Opp.Party(s)

MR. R.K. BHAWNANI

13 Sep 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 2365 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 21/04/2010 in Appeal No. 533/2009 of the State Commission Chhattisgarh)
1. PARDUMAN SINGH CHAWLAFafadih ChowkRaipurChhattisgarh ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. ANDHRA BANKThrough Branch Manager, Fafadih ChowkRaipurChhattisgarh ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN ,PRESIDENTHON'BLE MRS. VINEETA RAI ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :MR. R.K. BHAWNANI
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 13 Sep 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

Complainant/petitioner applied for a loan of Rs.60 Lacs from the respondent bank for a hotel project and filed all the necessary documents.  However, the loan was not sanctioned.  The petitioner had paid processing fee of Rs.60,000/- which was not refunded.  On a claim filed by the petitioner, respondent refunded sum of Rs.26,292/- and withheld the remaining amount of Rs.33,708.  Thus, being aggrieved petitioner filed a complaint against the respondent

-2-

seeking direction to the respondent to pay the balance amount of Rs.33,708/- along with a compensation of Rs.50,000/-.

          District Forum dismissed the complaint, aggrieved against which the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission.  The State Commission relied upon paragraphs 2 & 3 of the policy in which it is provided that whenever credit proposals are declined, only 50% of the normal processing charges/upfront fee is refunded to the borrowers.  Since the credit proposal of the petitioner was not accepted, the respondent has refunded 50% of the processing fee after deducting 12.5% towards service tax collected from the petitioner. 

We agree with the view taken by the State Commission and find no merit in this revision petition.  Dismissed.  No costs.



......................JASHOK BHANPRESIDENT
......................VINEETA RAIMEMBER