IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 25th day of November, 2019
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R, Member
C C No. 128/18 (filed on 28/06/18)
Petitioner : Joseph P. Varkey,
Paruthivelil House,
Aymanam P.O.
Kottayam – 15.
Vs.
Opposite Party : 1) The Manager,
Axis Bank,
Direct Sales Associates
Office No.18, II Floor,
CSI, Mini shopping Complex,
Baker Junction – 686001.
(Adv. Sreekala Krishnadas and
Adv. Shyni Gopi)
2) The Manager,
Axis Bank Ltd. RAC,
III Floor Chicago Plaza,
Rajaji Road, Kochi – 682635.
O R D E R
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
The complainant’s case is that he applied for a house maintenance loan from the opposite party bank on an assurance that he would be eligible for a subsidy under the Prime minister’s avas yojana scheme. On 28.12.2017 he was informed that his loan was sanctioned as no.(PWR – LARI) ID:7503348 and vide cheque no. 204851 they collected an amount of Rs.5,900/-as processing charge.
As per the intimation from the bank, the complainant borrowed Rs. 15,000/- and completed the work. Subsequently the opposite party demanded a relationship certificate of the previous owners of the property and the complainant could not produce it. Due to this reason the loan application was rejected.
The complainant hence filed this complaint before this forum seeking a direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.15,000/- along with cost and compensation.
Notice was sent to the opposite party and the opposite party appeared and filed their version.
The opposite party admits that the complainant had applied for a loan and as per the legal advice from the panel lawyer, they required some more documents and the complainant failed to produce it. The opposite party did not collect any processing charge. The amount of Rs.5900/- was a login fee which is non refundable. The complainant approached the Banking ombudsman and as per the direction of the Ombudsman the opposite party decided to return the said amount on account of their goodwill even though the default was on the part of the complainant. Thus the opposite party contacted the complainant several times but he did not cooperate. Hence they sent a Demand Draft of Rs.5,900/-as registered post to the complainant’s address. So it is evident that the complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
The plaintiff filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination along with 2 documents which are marked as Exhibits A1 and A2. The opposite party counsel submitted that they have no evidence.
Considering the above facts and evidences on record, we frame the following points :
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite
-
2. Reliefs and cost?
Point No.1
The complainant’s main allegation is that the opposite party has committed deficiency in their service by approving the loan application first by receiving Rs.5,900/- and later rejecting the loan application filed by the complainant for the reason of non production of a required document. The opposite party in their version clearly stated that they required the said document only according to the legal opinion. This cannot be said as a deficiency on the part of the opposite party bank.
The complainant has produced two documents out of which the A1 is a list of documents alleged to be required by the bank. But the complainant has failed to produce any evidence to prove that the opposite party has legally or illegally demanded the said documents and to establish that there is a deficiency from the bank in requiring the said documents. Moreover, the opposite party admits in the version that they had received Rs.5,900 from the complainant as login fee. But as per the direction of the Hon’ble Banking Ombudsman in a pending case filed by the complainant they returned the said amount vide a Demand Draft sent via registered post to the complainant. The Exbt.A2 letter sent by the opposite party to the complainant also shows that the opposite party has intimated the complainant that they were sending the DD of Rs.5,900/-.
From these facts, we understand that the complainant does not have a
genuine intention in presenting this case before this Forum.
Hence we are of the opinion that the complaint is not sustainable on any justifiable grounds and is to be dismissed.
Accordingly the complaint stands dismissed.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 25th day of November, 2019.
Smt. Bindhu R, Member Sd/-
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits from the side of complainant
A1 : Copy of personal requirement documents
A2 : Copy of letter dtd.08/08/18 by opposite party.
By Order
Senior Superintendent
