Haryana

Panchkula

CC/224/2017

SURINDER KUMAR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANOOP KUMAR,HOME LOAN COUNSELOR,HDFC. - Opp.Party(s)

28 Jan 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	224 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	09.10.2017
Date of Decision	:	28.01.2019

 

Surinder Kumar, #353, Power Colony, Industrial Area, Phase II, Panchkula.  

 

                                                                                     ….Complainant

Versus

Anoop Kumar, Home Loan Counselor, HDFC Sales. (Mob. No.9056555532)

….Opposite Party

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:              Mr.Satpal, President.

Mr.Jagmohan Singh, Member.

Ms. Ruby Sharma, Member.

 

For the Parties:   None for complainant. 

                        Ms. Anjali Moudgil, Advocate for OP.

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.     We shall be disposing of the present complaint on the basis of record available on the file and the arguments advanced by ld. counsel for the OP as the complainant or any other person duly authorized by him in this behalf has not been appearing since 22.05.2018. The case was adjourned to 02.11.2018, 19.11.2018, 28.11.2018, 05.12.2018, 19.12.2018, 11.01.2019 and for today i.e. 28.01.2019 for arguments but none appeared on behalf of the complainant.

2.     The brief facts of the present complaint as alleged are that the complainant had applied for home loan from HDFC through OP (Sh. Anoop Kumar, Home Loan Counselor) by depositing the required processing fee of Rs.2850/- vide cheque No.819434 dated 08.06.2017 and the OP assured the complainant for processing the loan but after one and half month he refused for processing the home loan nearby date of registration of purchased plot. HDFC issued the application number 626317301, but not processed. An email for refunding the processing fee has been sent to OP on 27.06.2017, but no response has been given by the OP; this act and conduct of the OP amounts to deficiency in service on his part; hence, this complaint.

3.     Upon notice, the OP has appeared and filed the written statement taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable on the ground of mis-joinder of parties and locus standi. Further stated that the complainant is not a consumer. There is no privity of contract between the parties.  On merit, it is submitted that there is no privity of contract between the parties. The complainant never deposited any amount or cheque on account of processing fee with the OP. The complainant neither a consumer nor OP ever promised to provide any kind of services to the complainant; thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

4.     The complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure CA along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-3 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the OP tendered affidavit Annexure RA in evidence and closed the evidence.  

5.     We have heard the ld. counsel for the OP and gone through the record minutely and carefully.  

6.     After hearing the ld. counsel for OP and perusing the relevant record available on the file, it has been revealed that the complainant applied for home loan from HDFC Bank and in this regard deposited an amount of Rs.2850/- as processing fee. The complainant has claimed the refund of Rs.2850/-, deposited on 08.06.2017 from the OP stating that his loan case was not processed and the OP has wrongly charged the said amount as processing fee in advance.  The OP has denied the claim of the complainant stating that there is no privity of contract between the OP and the complainant as he has not deposited any amount with the OP and that the complainant does not fall under the category of consumer. The OP has denied any deficiency in services on his part and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint and claimed that the complaint is liable to be rejected on the ground misjoinder of the parties.

        From the perusal of Annexure C-1 and C-3 it is evident that the complainant had applied for home loan from HDFC Bank and in this regard he was assigned file No.626317301. From the perusal of Annexure C-3 it has been revealed that the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.2850/- vide cheque No.819434. However, we are clueless with regard to the person or the institution with whom the said amount was deposited. The complainant has alleged that the said amount was deposited with the OP but the OP has denied about any deposition of amount with him. It is clear as stated earlier that complainant has applied for home loan from HDFC Bank but the said bank has not been impleaded as Opposite Party. In the absence of any version from the HDFC Bank we are unable to conclude with regard to the deposition of the said amount. The OP has taken a specific plea vide preliminary objection No.3 regarding the misjoinder of parties. Despite categorical and specific objection of the OP, the complainant failed to implead the HDFC Bank as OP for the reasons best known to him. If the HDFC Bank had been impleaded as OP then we would have been in a position to ascertain as to why the loan case was not processed and with whom the alleged amount of Rs.2850/- was deposited by the complainant. In view of these stated facts, we find no force and substance in the version of the complainant and hence we dismiss the complaint being devoid of any merit. However, in the interest of justice, equity and fair play, we deem it expedient to grant liberty to the complainant to file a fresh complaint by impleading the necessary parties if he so advised.  A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced

28.01.2019          RUBY SHARMA      JAGMOHAN SINGH      SATPAL

                          MEMBER               MEMBER               PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                         SATPAL

                                         PRESIDENT