Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/1014/2016

Sachin Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Axis Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Vipin Kumar

18 Jul 2017

ORDER

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

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/1014/16
Date  of  Institution	:	17/11/2016
Date   of   Decision	:	18/07/2017

 

 

 

 

 

[1]  Sachin Kumar S/o Sh. Shree Mohan;

 

[2]  Ritu Sharma W/o Sh. Sachin Kumar;

 

Both residents of Flat No. R-211 (labelled as 311 in the Building) Tower GT-3, Omaxe Greens, Jharmari, Derabassi, Punjab – 140501.

….Complainants

 

Vs.

 

[1]  AXIS Bank, RAC Branch, SCO 350-352, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh, through authorized signatory.

 

[2]  AXIS Bank Ltd., ‘TRISHUL’, Third Floor, Opposite Samartheshwar Temple, Nr. Law Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad – 380 006 (Registered Office), through authorized signatory.

…… Opposite Parties 

 

 

BEFORE:   MRS.SURJEET KAUR             PRESIDING MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

For Complainants	:	Sh. Vipin Kumar, Advocate.
For OP Nos.1 & 2	:	Sh. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

 

          In brief, the Complainants were sanctioned a home loan of Rs.28,000/- on 10.01.2015 for purchasing a flat in Omaxe Greens. The said loan was payable in 300 installments of Rs.25,740/-. The case of the Complainants is that the Opposite Party No.1 unilaterally capped the sanctioned amount and reduced it to Rs.24,06,000/- and an amount of Rs.22,91,000/- was disbursed to the Complainants. Thereafter, the Complainants requested the Opposite Parties to enhance the loan amount. The said request was processed by the Opposite Parties, with an expected enhancement of Rs.4,00,000/-. However, after much persuasion and follow-up, an amount of Rs.1,14,487/- was released to the Complainants, but without any enhancement as expected. When all the frantic efforts made by the Complainants, failed to fructify, as a measure of last resort, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainants have filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs. 

  

2.     Notice of the complaint was sent to the Opposite Parties, seeking their version of the case.

 

3.     Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 in their reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, have stated that as per the legal and technical report total market value of the property was Rs.30,08,400/- hence as per the loan sanction conditions the eligible loan amount of Rs.24.06 lacs was funded to the Complainants being 80% of market value. Moreover, on the request of the Complainants, the answering Opposite Parties re-assessed the value of the property, as there was marginal hike in the rate of property, and based on revised market value an amount of Rs.1,05,360/- was more sanctioned to the Complainants. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on their part, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

 

4.     Controverting the allegations contained in the written statement and reiterating the pleadings in the Complaint, the Complainants filed the rejoinder.

 

5.     Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

6.     We have heard the Ld. Counsel for Parties and also perused the record, along with the written arguments, with utmost care and circumspection.

 

7.     The main grievance of the Complainants is that inspite of sanctioning of a loan amount of Rs.28,00,000/- by the Opposite Parties, they were not disbursed the said amount. On perusal of the document placed at Annexure C-1, we find that a sanction letter was issued by the Opposite Parties on 10.01.2015, which was a financial sanction and was subject to clear legal and technical reports by bank’s empaneled lawyer and valuator in regard to the property being purchased/ mortgaged. The aforesaid sanction of the loan was also subject to LTV to be capped at 80% of MV. Also, the Condition No. 36 of the sanction letter stipulates that the facility amount would be restricted to 80% of Market Value in case the loan amount is greater than Rs.20,00,000/-. It is not disputed that as per the legal and technical report (Annexure OP-1), total market value of the property was Rs.30,08,400/- hence as per the loan sanction condition, the eligible loan amount of Rs.24.06 lacs was funded to the Complainants which is 80% of the market value. Thus, we find that the whole gamut of facts and circumstances leans towards the side of the Opposite Parties. The case is lame of strength and therefore, liable to be dismissed.

    

8.     Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation to hold that the Complainants have failed to prove that there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties or that the Opposite Parties adopted any unfair trade practice. As such, the Complaint is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

 

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

Announced

18^th July, 2017                                  Sd/-    

 (SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

                                             Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER