PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER(Retd), PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the order dated 31.07.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it accepted the complaint of the complainant(now respondent) and directed the Opposite Party as under ; “To pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant, for causing her immense mental & physical harassment. The Opposite Party is also directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.15,000/-. This order be complied with by the Opposite Party within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, failing which, they shall be liable to pay penal interest @12% p.a. on the above awarded amount of compensation of Rs.50,000/- from the date of filing this complaint i.e. 20.3.2012 till its actual payment, besides paying litigations costs as above.” 2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant planned to buy AUDI Q5 car for Rs.40 lacs, for giving the same as a gift to her husband, on marriage anniversary, which was to take place on 24-1-2012. She approached the Opposite Party for taking loan of Rs.10 lacs, for the aforesaid purpose. All the relevant documents were submitted to the Opposite Party alongwith 3 post dated cheques of Rs.63,240/- each as EMI security. The Opposite Party having been satisfied with the relevant documents, issued approval letter dated 23.1.2012. However, when the complainant reached the dealer for taking delivery of the car, on 24.1.2012, she was surprised to know that it (dealer) had not received the payment from the Opposite Party. It was stated that due to fault of the Opposite Party, delivery of the car could not be taken on 24.1.2012. After numerous calls to the Opposite Party, the complainant was finally told to hand over 3 post dated cheques, as margin money, after signing the loan cancellation letter. Finally, the complainant had to avail of loan from some other financial institution and took the delivery of car on 25.1.2012. The complainant brought this matter to the notice of higher authorities of the Opposite Party, through e-mail Annexure C-6, but to no avail. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Party, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only) was filed by her, directing the Opposite Party to pay compensation of Rs.2.00 lacs for mental agony and harassment. 3. The Opposite Party, in its written version, admitted that the complainant applied for loan, as stated in the complaint. It was stated that after receipt of the documents from the complainant, it took 3-4 days for the Opposite Party for complete verification of the same(documents) and completion of other formalities, prior to the issuance of pay order in favour of the dealer. It was further stated that the confirmation/verification of documents was still under process, but the complainant immediately i.e. on 24.1.2012 approached the dealer for taking delivery of the car, without waiting for the receipt of disbursal of amount by the Opposite Party. It was further stated that the complainant was requested to wait for some time, but she chose not to do so. It was further stated that the letter Annexure C-2 specifically provided that the same was not a delivery order. It was denied that there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party. The remaining averments were denied, being wrong. 4. The parties led evidence, in support of their case. 5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening paragraph of the instant order. 6.. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party. 7. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 8. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that, no doubt, the complainant applied for loan of Rs.10 lacs, to the Opposite Party. He further submitted that the approval letter annexure C2, was issued in favour of the complainant on 23.1.2012. He further submitted that in Annexure C2, it was in clear-cut terms mentioned that the same be not treated as delivery order in respect of the vehicle. He further submitted that the final loan amount was to be disbursed only on satisfactory receipt of documents i.e. Stamped Loan Agreement, Repayment Instruction(post dated cheques of debit-ECS instruction or standing instruction for debit from account with HDFC Bank, invoice & Insurance Cover Note with hypothecation in favour of HDFC Bank Ltd. duly recorded thereon, and Margin Money. He further submitted that in Annexure C2 itself, it was in clear-cut terms recorded that the approval was valid subject to all the documents furnished by the complainant, being found in order. He further submitted that the documents submitted by the complainant were still under verification, when she approached the dealer on 24.1.2012 i.e. on the next date of issuance of approval letter annexure C2. He further submitted that, under these circumstances, there was no deficiency in service, on the part of the Opposite Party, but the District Forum was wrong, in coming to the conclusion, to the contrary. The order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside 9. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent/complainant submitted that the documents were submitted to the Opposite Party on 23.1.2012, at the time of issuance of approval letter. He further submitted that there was no question of verification of such documents. He further submitted that once the approval letter was issued, it was the duty of the Opposite Party to send the amount of loan to the dealer for the purpose of delivery of car to the complainant on 24.1.2012, but it failed to do so. He further submitted that, on account of this reason, she could not gift car to her husband, on marriage anniversary falling on 24.1.2012. He further submitted that the District Forum was right, in accepting the complaint. It was further submitted that the order of the District Forum is legal and valid. 10. After giving thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, in our considered opinion, the appeal is liable to be accepted, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. Admittedly, the complainant applied for loan to the Opposite Party, for the purpose of purchase of a car. There is nothing, on record, that at the time of applying for loan, the complainant gave, in writing, that she required the car for the purpose of giving the same as a gift, to her husband, on marriage anniversary, falling on 24.1.2012. Annexure C2 is the approval letter dated 23.1.2012, which was issued by the Opposite Party. In this document, it was in clear-cut terms, recited that the loan would be disbursed, on receipt of the documents i.e. Stamped Loan Agreement, Repayment Instruction, post dated cheques of debit-ECS instruction or standing instruction for debit from account with HDFC Bank, invoice & Insurance Cover Note with hypothecation in favour of HDFC Bank Ltd. According to note 2, appended on this document, it was in clear-cut terms stated that this document must not be treated as delivery order, in respect of the vehicle. According to note 9, appended on this document, it was made clear that the final loan amount would be disbursed only on receipt of the satisfactory receipt of the aforesaid documents by the dealer. Under the heading ‘P.S.’, mentioned on this document at point no.1, it was in clear-cut terms, stated that the approval was valid subject to all the documents given by the complainant being found in order. It means that the documents i.e. loan agreement schedule dated 23.1.2012 annexure C3, Insurance Cover annexure C4 and Change of Format annexure C5, which were submitted by the complainant, were required to be verified before final disbursement of loan amount in favour of the complainant. It certainly takes atleast 2-3 days, to verify the correctness of the documents, submitted by a customer, to the bank. Since the documents furnished by the complainant, were still under the process of verification, the loan could not be disbursed in her favour, nor the same could be sent to the dealer as per annexure C2. The complainant, instead of waiting for the verification of the documents, submitted by her, by the Opposite Party, immediately on 24.1.2012, went to the dealer for taking delivery of the car. Had no conditions in Annexure C2, as are mentioned above, been mentioned, the matter would have been different. It, therefore, could not be said that there was any deficiency in service, on the part of the Opposite Party. The District Forum was wrong, in coming to the conclusion that mental and physical harassment was caused to the complainant for non- disbursement of loan to her immediately after receipt of the approval letter. The findings of the District Forum, being incorrect and perverse, are liable to be reversed. 11. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellants. 12. The order passed by the District Forum, being not based, on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, suffers from illegality and perversity and the same warrants the interference of this Commission. 13. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, is accepted, with no order as to costs, and the order of the District Forum is set aside. 14. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. 15. The file be consigned to the Record Room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
