Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/653/2018

Dr. Meenakshi Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Axis Bank Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Devinder Kumar Adv.

03 Jan 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	653 of 2018
Date  of  Institution	:	14.11.2018
Date   of   Decision	:	03.01.2020

 

 

 

 

1]  Dr.Meenakshi Sharma, aged 64 years, wife of Er.Satish Kumar Bharaj,

2]  Er.Satish Kumar Bharaj, aged 68 years, son of Sh.Pirthi Chand Bharaj,

Both resident of H.No.107-K, Lane-5, Majithia Enclave, Patiala 147001

             …..Complainant

Versus

1]  Axis Bank Ltd., at SCO 366-367, 2^nd Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Manager.

2]  M/s Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd., India Trade Tower, 1^st Floor, Baddi Kurali Road, New Chandigarh Mullanpur, District SAS Nagar. Mohali 140901 through its Managing Director

3]  Mr.Kulvinder Sodhi of M/s Patiala Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.544, 3^rd Floor, Sector 70, Mohali, an authorised sales organizer of OP No.2.

4]  Mr.Amit Malhotra of M/s Malhotra Properties, T.B.Hospital Road, Soodan Street, Patiala, an associate of OP No.3.

   ….. Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN        PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA    MEMBER

                                        

 

Argued by :-

Sh.Sunil Dixit and Sh.Devinder Kumar, Adv. for complainants

Sh.Gaurav Gupta, Adv. for Opposite Party No.1.

Sh.N.S.Gill, Adv. for Opposite Party No.2

Sh.S.S.Gill, Adv. for Opposite Party No.3.

Opposite Party No.4 exparte.

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

         Briefly stated, the complainants were approached by the OPs No.3 & 4, authorised sale agents of Opposite Party No.2, for sale of flat in the project of Opposite Party No.2 namely ‘The Lake’ in Omaxe, New Chandigarh and assured the complainant to get it financed from their authroized Bank. Accordingly, the complainants booked One Unit of 3 BHK in said project of OP No.2 by making payment of Rs.5 lacs (Ann.B & C).  Thereafter, the OPs NO.3 & 4 along with Mr.Sahil, Senior Relationship Officer/Home Loan of Axis Bank, Chandigarh visited the complainants and he assured that a loan of Rs.60-62 lakhs can be given to them against the said flat by the Axis Bank.  Accordingly, the complainant issued two cheques one of Rs.2850/-, dated 11.9.2015 & of Rs.570/-, dated 11.9.2015 in favour of OP No.1 Bank towards process fee.  Thereafter, the representative of Opposite Party No.1 again collected two cheques of Rs.5725/-, dated 12.2.2016 and Rs.5783/-, date 12.2.2016 from the complainants along with other documents such as Aadhar Card, Voter Card, Identity Proof etc. It is averred that the complainants were intimated by representative of Opposite Party NO.1 time & again that the matter is under consideration and in that process, it again collected two cheques of Rs.5725/-, dated 25.5.2016 and Rs.115/-, dated 25.5.2016 favouring Axis Bank, towards processing fee.  However, the Officials of  Opposite Party No.1 failed & refused to disburse loan to the complainants, as a result, the Opposite Party No.2 cancelled the booked 3BHK Unit of complainants due to the disapproval of loan.  It is submitted that Opposite Party No.1 told the complainants that they will forfeit earnest money of Rs.5 lakhs and in case the complainants want to revive the booked Unit having Client ID TLC/736, then they should pay interest.  It is also submitted that having no alternate, the complainants had to change the booked Unit from 3BHK to 2 BHK and also had to pay Rs.95,000/- to Opposite Party No.1 towards interest through cheques (Ann.C-5). Submitted further that thereafter, the Opposite Party No.2 revived/re-allotted Unit NO.502 Mystik 2BK Unit vide letter dated 24.4.2016 having same Client ID No.TLC/736(An.C-6).  In the meantime, the loan was applied for with PNB Housing Finance, Patiala, which was granted within a months period and the first installment to M/s Omaxe Ltd. has been released by PNB Housing finance (Ann.C-7).  Thereafter, vide letter dated 22.6.2016, the complainants submitted allotment letter duly singed by them in connection with re-allotment of Unit No.502 (Ann.C-9).  It is further submitted that apart from Rs.5 lacs, the complainants also deposited Rs.3,29,338/- with OPs vide cheque dated 10.6.2016 & 10.5.2016 (Ann.C-10).  The complainants also requested the Opposite Party No.2 vide letter dated 4.7.2016 to waive off the interest, but to no effect. 

         It has been alleged that the official of Opposite Party No.1 Bank time & again collected the documents from the complainants and also collected the amounts at three times towards processing fee, but still failed to grant & disburse the loan in time, due to which the booked Unit of the complainants were cancelled, which they have to get re-booked/allotted with another Unit of 2 BHK against 3 BHK Unit and had to pay interest amount of Rs.95,000/- to Opposite Party No.1 on account of delay.  It is further alleged that the Opposite Parties have adopted unfair trade practice by not providing the loan to the complainants despite collecting the documents and processing fee thrice, despite of the fact that the loan was applied under subvention, and thereby caused not only financial loss, but immense mental agony and physical harassment.  Hence, this complaint.

 

2]       The Opposite Party No.1/Axis Bank filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that after scrutinizing the application and documents of complainants seeking loan of Rs.65 lakh for a term of 5 years/60 months, it is found that the age of complainant No.1 is 61 years and age of complainant No.2 is more than 65 years.  It is stated that the complainant being senior citizens did not fall in the category norms, hence the bank had rejected their loan application vide letter dated 27.10.2015 and thereafter neither any cheque for processing fee nor any other document was demanded from them. It is denied that the bank has charged processing fee through cheques from the complainants. It is also stated that the Bank had collected financial credentials only for once on 20.10.2015 and bank has never charged any processing fee from the complainants. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying other allegations of complainants, the Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua it.

         Opposite Party No.2/Omaxe Chandigarh Extension, has also filed reply stating that the complainants had approached it for allotment of unit in the project of answering Opposite Party.  It is denied that any assurance regarding providing of financial assistance was ever given by answering Opposite Party or its representative.  It is denied that the matter was pursued by Sale Organizers of answering Opposite Party.  It is stated that the complainants booked unit in question in the project of answering Opposite Party and deposited only booking amount, but thereafter, they did not pay even a single penny despite issuance of reminder and resultantly, the answering Opposite Party had to cancel the allotment of the unit of complainants, which later on they get rebooked with a substitute. It is submitted that the advancement or non-advancement of loan to the complainant by Axis Bank has no concern or connection with answering Opposite Party.  It is submitted that liability, if any, of Axis Bank cannot be burdened upon the answering Opposite Party. Denying other assertions as well as any deficiency in service, the Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua it.         

         Opposite Party No.3 also filed reply stating that the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ qua him.  It is stated that Opposite Party No.3 has no role in finances and the same is exclusively done by Opposite Party No.2.  It is submitted that the grievance of the complainants is regarding the non-processing of the home loan within reasonable period of time, which lies in the domain of OPNo.1 and the same is not related to answering Opposite Party.  Denying other allegations for want of knowledge, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed qua Opposite Party No.3.

         Opposite Party No.4 did not turn up despite service of notice, hence he was proceeded exparte vide order dated 9.1.2019.

 

3]       Rejoinders have also been filed by the complainants thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that of the reply filed by OPs.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire record.

 

6]       It is apt to mention that earlier Consumer Complaint No.651 of 2016 pertaining to the same cause of action was filed by the complainants before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh, which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file complaint on the same cause of action before the appropriate Forum having pecuniary jurisdiction vide order dated 3.4.2017.  Later on, the complaint was filed before the Hon’ble State Commission, UT, Chandigarh and by virtue of deleting M/s Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd. from the array of parties, the dispute remains only qua relief claimed against Axis Bank Ltd.,/OP No.1 and it being not maintainable before the Hon’ble State Commission, UT, Chandigarh, the complaint was dismissed as withdrawn.  Thereafter, the present complaint has been filed before this Forum for the 3^rd time. 

 

7]       From the meticulous screening of the record, it is made out that the matter which has been disputed by the complainants is qua alleged the processing fee charged by Opposite Party No.1/Axis Bank thrice and for causing delay as well as for not sanctioning of loan applied for by the complainants.  It is also disputed by the complainants that due to non-sanctioning of loan by Opposite Party No.1 Bank, the originally booked 3BHK Flat with Opposite Party No.2 was cancelled and having no alternative, they have to re-booked a lower category flat i.e. 2 BHK flat from Opposite Party No.2 in lieu of earlier booked 3BHK. It is also alleged by the complainants that due to deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.1 Bank, they were forced to pay interest to Opposite Party NO.2/Omaxe Company to the tune of Rs.95,000/- for getting re-allotment of another Unit. 

 

8]       The Opposite Party No.1 claimed that they have duly informed the complainants, after going through their documents, about rejection of their Home Loan Application vide letter dated 27.10.2015 due to Internal Policy norms not met (Ann.OP-1/2).     The complainants have denied the receipt of any such letter as claimed by Opposite Party No.1. 

 

9]       After thorough perusal of record before us and considering the submissions made by the parties, we found hard to come across any of the document, which reveals that Opposite Party No.1 ever committed to the complainants to grant/sanction of the loan, as applied for.  We are of the considered opinion that Opposite Party No.1, after thoroughly verifying the financial credentials of the complainants and also considering the other parameters, found itself unable to sanction the loan applied for by the complainants and duly intimated the complainants about its rejection vide letter dated 27.10.2015 (Ann.OP-1/2).  The averment of the complainants that they have not received any such letter is not acceptable as it is only after having received the rejection letter from Opposite Party NO.1, the complainants proceeded to approach another financial company i.e. PNB Housing Finance to get the loan facility.  This reveals that the complainants were well aware in time about the rejection of their loan application by Opposite Party No.1.  There is nothing on record to establish that Opposite Party No.1 was under any obligation or under any commitment to disburse the loan, which in our opinion, the complainants cannot claim as a matter of right.

         At the same time, we found the Opposite Party No.1 deficient in their act with regard to non-refunding of the processing fee to the complainants knowing fully well at the very first stage of applying for the loan, the complainants are senior citizens above 60 years of age and as per their policy norms, they could not be disbursed loan as demanded for Rs.62 lakhs.  Thus the Opposite Party No.1 is liable to refund the amount so collected on account of processing of the loan application.

 

10]      The record reveals that few cheques issued by the complainants in favour of Opposite Party No.1 Bank have been kept on hold and have not been encashed, so the Opposite Party Bank is liable to refund the amount of the cheques issued by the complainants, which have been encashed towards further processing fee of home loan.  There is no record that any original document of the complainants have been retained by the Opposite Party No.1 bank along with their loan application, so no question of return of any such document arises against the Opposite Party No.1.  In the absence of any such documentary evidence, we are constrained to pass any order in regards to the returning of documents alleged to have been submitted by the complainant.

 

11]      From the above discussion and findings, we are of the opinion that a bit the Opposite Party No.1 has been found deficient in rendering proper service to the complainants and therefore, the present complaint is partly allowed against Opposite Party No.1 with direction to refund the entire processing fee, so charged by them from the complainants towards their Home Loan Application, and shall also pay litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainants, which includes harassment cost.

 

         This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Party No.1 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the Opposite Party No.1 shall be liable to pay additional cost of Rs.10,000/- apart from the above relief. 

 

12]      The complaint qua OPs No.2 to 4 stands dismissed.

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

3^rd January, 2020                            

                                                                             Sd/-             (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

         

 

Sd/-

                                                                    (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER