Haryana

Karnal

CC/206/2020

Asha Mittal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Axis Bank Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sudhakar Mittal

29 May 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 206 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.09.06.2020

                                                        Date of Decision:29.05.2023

 

Asha Mittal aged 53 years, wife of Shri Pardeep Mittal, resident of house no.318, Gali no.24, Saini Colony, Model Town, Karnal, Haryana. (Aadhar no.4252 4874 0887).

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Axis Bank Limited through its Manager/Authorized representative, SCO 221, Paramjeet Tower, Sector-12, Karnal.

 

2.     Haryana Sehri Vikas Pradhikaran, through the Estate Officer, HUDA complex, Sector-12, Karnal.

                                                              …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

          

Argued by: Shri Sudhakar Mittal, counsel for the complainant

                   Shri Deepak Saini, counsel for the OP no.1.

                   Shri Bhanu Partap, counsel for the OP no.2.

 

                    (jaswant singh, president)

ORDER:   

                

                 The complainants has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant had entered into an agreement with one Kamlesh Garg for purchase of plot bearing no.1346, sector33-B, Urban Estate, Karnal. For this purpose, she applied for the loan to OP no.1. OP no.1, after going through the documents and CIBIL report of the complainant, agreed to sanction the loan vide its sanction letter dated 01.01.2020. This loan was approved by  the OP no.1 for the plot plus construction, at the interest rate of 8.85% per annum. There was no possessing fee for the advancement of the loan and the loan was repayable in 180 equated monthly installments. It was manually agreed that the OP no.1 will advance the amount, as and when required by the complainant for purpose of making her due installment or for construction of house. After sanction of the loan amount, the complainant requested the OP no.1 to make the payment of overdue installments dated 05.02.2019, but OP instead of making payment, asked the complainant to deposit the same from her own account and lateron, this amount was credited by the OP no.1 in the account of the complainant. The second installment of the plot was due on 05.02.2020, the complainant requested to OP no.1 to advance the second installment in the account of the complainant or to transfer the same in the account of OP no.2 under the account of complainant, but OP no.1 flatly refused to transfer the second installment in the account of the complainant or to transfer the same in the account of OP no.2. OP no.1 told that the complainant that he will only transfer the amount through DD issued in favour of OP no.2 under the account of complainant. The complainant requested the OP no.1 that the OP no.2 will not accept the amount through any mode, but only through online payment from the account of the complainant or anybody else. OP no.1 flatly refused to transfer the amount though online to the account of the OP no.2 and issued demand draft dated 11.02.2020 for a sum of Rs.6,09,213/-, which was accepted by the complainant under protest. After receipt of Demand Draft, the complainant requested the OP no.1 to accept this amount, as her due installments, but OP no.1 did not accept this Demand Draft. It is pertinent to mention here that complainant has opened his loan account with the OP no.1, as the OP no.1 is working as Collecting Agent of OP no.2, meaning thereby that for all the purpose, it was the OP no.1, who has sanctioned the loan, disbursed the amount and to collect the amount under the account of the complainant on behalf of the OP no.2. Despite repeated requests, the complainant could not get her installments deposited in the account of OP no.2. The complainant requested the OP no.1, vide its letter dated 20.02.2020 to close her account and to release his original documents i.e. copy of allotment letter, re-allotment letter, possession letter, blank cheques and permission to mortgage issued in favour of the OP no.2 etc. At this, OP no.1 forced to complainant to deposit interest amount of Rs.2788/- on the amount of Rs.12,18,426/-. Even though, the loan amount was sanctioned at 0% processing charges, but OP no.1 illegally and Arbitrarily charged a sum of Rs.5900/-, Rs.118/- on 10.02.2020 and thereafter credited a sum of Rs.12,18,426/- in the account of the complainant, whereas no such amount was advanced or disbursed to the complainant. OP no.1 further charged interest of Rs.2788/- from the complainant, against the terms and condition of the sanction letter dated 01.01.2020. Due to backing out of the OP no.1 for advancing the loan amount, complainant was under undue pressure to clear her outstanding installment dated 05.02.2020 and to complete the construction over the plot, as she is residing at rental accommodation. Complainant again approached different financial institution for advancement of loan amount and finally State Bank of India was pleased to sanction the same without processing charges subject to despite of documents, retained by the OP no.1. The complainant got closed her loan account after making the payments of illegal demands of the OP no.1. Thereafter, complainant requested the OP no.1 so many times to return the documents and blank cheques but OP failed to return the same till today. Non-release of the 2^nd installment of Rs.6,09,213/- and blank cheques after closing the loan amount, charging of Rs.5911/-, Rs.112/- and Rs.2788/- as interest on non-disbursed amount, delay in returning the document and retaining the blank cheques by OP no.1, in clear terms amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the loan was sanctioned on 01.01.2020 and the loan amount was disbursed on 11.02.2020 and as such, there was no delay on the part of the OP no.1. As per bank rules, the payment are to be made through online process and this fact has been admitted by the complainant herself. It is further pleaded that form for the close of account was accepted on 18.03.2020 on the same day and documents were released. It is further pleaded that the process fee is waived off only if the loan is sanctioned and disbursed within 30 days from its sanction, but in the present case, loan was sanctioned on 01.01.2020 and the amount was disbursed on 11.02.2020 due to non-completion of documents. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.2 filed its separate written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi; cause of action; jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complaint regarding non-acceptance of the demand draft by the OP no.2 from the complainant are wrong and denied. Complaint as regard non-disbursement of the 2^nd installment by OP no.1 to the complainant does not relate to the OP no.2 and as such same needs no reply. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of re-allotment letter Ex.C1, copy of offer of possession letter Ex.C2, copy of demand draft dated 11.02.2020 Ex.C3, copy of cheque bearing no.457274 dated 20.02.2020 Ex.C4, copy of letter of Manager 20.02.2020 Ex.C5, copy of account statement Ex.C6, copy of foreclosure letter Ex.C7, copy of NDC Ex.C8 and closed the evidence on 24.12.2021 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Vikas Branch Manager Ex.OP1/A, copy of letter regarding release of equitable mortgage Ex.OP1, copy of Home Loan Application Form Ex.OP2, copy of Power Home Sanction Letter Ex.OP3 and closed the evidence on 11.05.2022 by suffering separate statement.

7.             OP no.2 led no evidence after availing several opportunities including four last opportunities. Thus, the evidence of OP no.2 was closed by court order, vide order dated 16.01.2023 of the Commission.

8.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

9.             The complainant had entered into an agreement for purchase of plot bearing No.1346 Sector 33B, Urban Estate, Karnal. As the complainant was shortage of money, that is why, he applied for a loan from the OP No.1. On checking, all the documents, the OP No.1 was sanctioned the loan vide sanction letter Ex.OP3 dated 01.01.2020 but despite sanctioning of loan, the loan amount was not disbursed neither in the account of complainant nor in the account of OP No.2, despite repeated requests of the complainant. However, the OP No.1 issued demand drafts, which were not accepted by OP No.2.  On perusal of the sanction letter,  it reveals that no processing fees, and other charges were to be paid by the complainant, but despite that the OP No.1 has charged an amount of Rs.5900/-, Rs.118/- and Rs.2788/-, and this fact has been proved from the Account Statement Ex.C6.

10.           The onus to prove for charging the said amount was relied upon the OP No.1 but OP No.1 has miserably failed to prove the same by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. It was the OP No.1 who was to explain as to why the said charges were levelled upon the complainant but OP No.1 has failed to explain the same. Hence, it appears that OP No.1 has charged the said amount from the complainant without any cogent reason. Thus, the act of the OP No.1, amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. 

11.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP No.1 to refund an amount of Rs.8806/- (Rs.5900+ Rs.118+Rs.2788/-) to complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% from the date of charging the said amount till its realization. We further direct OP No.1 to pay Rs.5000/- on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and towards litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint against OP No.2 stands dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dated:29.05.2023                                                                   

                                                                  President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                           Member                          Member