Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/522/2022

Ashok Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Axis Bank - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

12 Jun 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/522/2022
Date of Institution	:	18.5.2022
Date of Decision	:	12.6.2022

 

Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Dalbir Singh, Village- Mohla, District- Hisar (Haryana)-125042.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1    The Manager, Axis Bank, Branch Manimajra, Chandigarh - 160101

2.   Sandeep Kumar S/o Shri Kanshi Ram, Property Dealer, #139/16, Model Town, Hansi (Hisar), Haryana -125033

2. Ninhiya Devi wife Shri Ramdhari, #590/12, Krishna Colony, Hansi (Hisar)-125033.

 .  … Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY		Complainant in person.
		Sh. Gaurav Gupta counsel for OP No.1
		Complaint against OP No. 2&3 dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 21.9.2022.

Per SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, Member

1. Briefly stated  the complainant approached OP No.1 for availing housing loan on 06.5.2021, and submitted the required documents. They charged Rs.2950/- as processing fee. The complainant was asked to file after the second wave of Corona pandemic and also told that this is a work of 15 days only and will be done before 05.7.2021 as the deadline for land registration was 05.7.2021. Since the deadline of registration was coming near so the complainant contacted Mr. Shubham who told that there is some objection in the file and asked to send proof of local address I sent the necessary proofs to remove this objection on the same day itself. It is alleged that despite repeated request and supply of documents as asked for, the OPs lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other. Ultimately the OPs intimated the complainant that  they will not be able to give loan for purchase of land due to non-identification of the same and as such  the dream of buying a residential land  of complainant got shattered. It is alleged that due to the aforesaid act of OPs the earnest money given by complainant was forfeited although written assurance has been given by respondent-2 for refund but neither refund nor any affirmative reply is being given. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed.
2. The Opposite Parties NO.1 in its reply stated that financial sanction of loan was done on 12.7.2021  on the basis of financial credential of the complainant however, the complainant had to submit the property documents and other documents for disbursal of the loan in period of 180 days of the said sanction and after submission of documents the bank had to do the legal and technical verification of the property. On finding the clear legal and technical verification the loan was to be disbursed to the complainant but the land for which loan was applied was not identifiable at the site and do not match the legal and technical requirement for disbursal of loan.  It is clearly mentioned in clause 1 of the loan sanction letter that the loan sanction is subject to the clear legal and technical verification of the property. Since the land was not identifiable so the OP bank was  unable to get the legal and technical clearance of the complainant property and in compliance of condition No.1 of the sanction letter the loan of the complainant was not disbursed. It is averred that there is no deficiency on the part of the answering OP.  All other allegations made in the complaint has been denied being wrong.
3. Complaint against OP No.2&3 dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 21.9.2022.
4. Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated
5. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
7. On the perusal of the complaint it is observed that the main grievance of the complainant is that OP No.1 has not granted housing loan in spite of charging Rs.2950/- as processing fee and issue of loan sanction letter.
8. After thorough perusal of record, it is apparent on record that financial sanction of loan was done on 12.7.2021. However, before disbursal of the same on legal and technical verification done by the bank the land against which the loan was to be raised could not be identified.  Legal and technical verification of property is an important part of the housing loan and without clearance of the same the loan amount could not be released by any financial institution. In the instant case the complainant has failed to rebut by way of any concrete documentary evidence that the plea of the OP  No.1 that loan could not be released due to non identification of the land against which loan was to be released. Moreover, non-identification of land  is a fault on the part of OPs No. 2&3 with whom the deal of the land was done by the complainant and not the OP No.1 bank and interestingly the complainant withdrawn the complaint against them. Hence, we cannot hold liable to OP No.1 for the act and omission of the OPs No.2&3 against whom the complainant has withdrawn the complainant. Moreover,  any banking/financial institution cannot be forced to release the loan amount against the rules and regulations. Hence, no case is made out against OP No.1. Hence, the complaint being merit less liable to be dismissed.
9.  In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
10.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned

			sd/- [Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
mp			Member