Date of Order : 25.02.2017
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite parties to refund Rs. 25,000/- which was paid by way of processing fee and other miscellaneous expences for documentation.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 1,53,000/- ( Rs. One Lack fifty Three Thousand only ) advance money paid to the land owner.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 50,000/- ( Rs. Fifty thousand only ) as compensation.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 10,000/- ( Rs. Ten Thousand only ) as litigation costs.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
It is the case of the complainant that his son Amit Raj approached opposite party no. 1 i.e. Area Manager through opposite party no. 3 Md. Ali agent for housing loan of Rs. 10,25,000/- for purchasing a flat situated in Mukund Apartment, Gandhi Nagar, Patna as the son of the complainant is a soft ware engineer, Hydrabad who executed a power of attorney vide annexure – 1 in the name of complainant to do all act/ legal acts in respect of aforesaid flat under purchase. Thereafter opposite party no. 1 and 2 in presence of opposite party no. 3 directed him to submit all relevant papers as per requirement of L.I.C. Housing Finance Ltd. Thereafter the complainant submitted all the relevant documents to opposite parties i.e. agreement for sale executed between the developer and owner, mutation paper etc. After perusing all the documents who were duly signed by son of the complainant Amit Raj were given to opposite party no. 1 in presence of opposite party no. 3. Thereafter taking legal opinion from the panel lawyer on the basis of the documents submitted by the complainant for loan the complainant was directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- as a processing fee and other miscellaneous expences, which were paid to opposite party no. 3 in presence of opposite party no. 1 and 2. Although the complainant paid Rs. 25,000/- as a processing fee to opposite party no. 3 but opposite party no. 3 supplied receipt of only Rs. 3,000/- and promised to give receipt of balance amount.
In Para – 9 of the complaint petition it has been asserted that opposite party no. 2 and 3, after perusing and verifying all the documents submitted by the complainant sanctioned loan amount of Rs. 8,65,000/- to the complainant’s son.
It is stated by the complainant that the complainant had paid fifteen percent of the full amount to the owner at the time of agreement for sale and balance amount of 85% (i.e. sanctioned loan amount) was to be paid through the sanctioned amount of L.I.C. housing Finance to the vendors i.e. flat owners. The Bai – Bayana executed on 27.11.2006 was to be expired on 26.02.2007. The sanctioned letter of the loan amount issued by the opposite parties have been annexed as annexure – 2.
Thereafter the complainant met several times to opposite parties for releasing the sanctioned amount as the period of agreement was going to expire on 26.02.2007. After lot of persuasion by opposite parties the complainant’s son entered into another agreement with vendor on 16.02.2007 which remained effective for three months.
It is the case of the complainant that despite sanctioning the loan after perusing and verifying relevant papers the opposite parties did not released the loan in favour of the complainant on the pretext that the head quarter has refused to issue cheque of the sanctioned amount due to which the time of agreement for sale expired and the seed money remained with the vendor which has resulted loss and mental harassment to the complainant.
The next grievance of the complainant is that though he had paid Rs. 25,000/- as a processing fee to opposite party no. 3 in presence of opposite party no. 1 and 2 but receipt was granted for only Rs. 3,000/- and all the aforesaid amount remained with opposite party no. 3 without any result causing loss to the complainant and the opposite parties even did not returned all the documents furnished by the complainant.
On behalf of opposite party no. 1, 2 and 4 a written statement has been filed. In Para – 7 of written statement the opposite parties have stated that they deny the allegation of receipt of processing fee of Rs. 25,000/- in cash or through any mode of payment from the complainant or his son at any point of time.
It has been further asserted that the complainant was asked to nominal processing fee and other miscellaneous expences amounting to Rs. 3,730/- only for which a receipt was issued by opposite party no. 3. In Para – 8 of written statement the opposite parties have asserted as follows, “that the answering opposite parties state that the statements made in paragraphs – 9 of the complaint petition are false and misleading. Allegation of being satisfied through legal opinion and verification of papers and further sanctioning of loan Rs. 8,65,000/- by the opposite party no. 2 and 3 to the complainant’s son is imaginary and baseless and are hereby denied. Moreover, it is well settled through various judicial pronouncements that sanction of loan and /or disbursement of loan is not binding upon the financial institution and one cannot claim loan as a matter of right” they have also denied that they had suggested or directed the complainant or his son to submit another agreement for sale of the same date.
Thus the opposite parties have denied all the allegation of the complainant in specific way. They have also denied that sanctioning of the loan.
Annexure – 2 seems to be illegal. No rejoinder of the counter affidavit file by opposite party no. 1, 2 and 4 referred above, has been filed by the complainant. No any document has been filed to prove that the fact asserted by the opposite parties in their written statement is incorrect.
No finding can be given by this Forum on disputed facts. In view of the aforesaid fact we find no deficiency on the part of opposite parties and as such this complaint stands dismissed.
Member President
