Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/38/2016

Shivani Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Axis Bank - Opp.Party(s)

ShVivek Sharma

01 Jun 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

Consumer Complaint  No. 38 of 2016

                                                     Date of institution : 06.04.2016                                       

                                                        Date of decision    : 01.06.2018

Shivani Sharma, aged about 30 years, wife of Sh. Nilotpal, resident of House No.43, near Naina Devi Mandir, Sirhind, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. Axis Bank, Village Chanarthal Khurd, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib through its Branch Manager.
2. Axis Bank, having its head office at SCO 350-352, Sector 34-A, UT Chandigarh through its authorized person/Manager.

…..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Sections 11 to 15 of the Consumer Protection Act.                

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                                 

Sh. Inder Jit, Member

 

Present :        Sh.Vivek Sharma, counsel for complainant.

                      Sh. Vinay Sood, Cl. for OPs.

ORDER

By Inder Jit, Member

                      Complainant, Shivani Sharma, aged about 30 years, wife of Sh. Nilotpal, resident of House No.43, near Naina Devi Mandir, Sirhind, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Sections 11 to 15 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.           The complainant, who wanted to go abroad i.e. Australia for her further studies, approached the OPs in the month of November 2015 for seeking education loan. In response to her visit, OP No.1 sent an email to the complainant with check list of documents to be submitted alongwith loan application.  The complainant accordingly submitted all the documents as mentioned in the check list to OP No.1.  Thereafter, on 09.12.2015 OP No.1 again asked the complainant to submit some more documents including offer letter, whereas all the documents were already submitted with OP No.1. However, the complainant again submitted all the documents with OP No.1. Then after about one month of submission of all the documents, OP No.2 again asked for Hadud certificate on 13.01.2016. The same was submitted by the complainant on 15.01.2016. Thereafter, OP No.2 again sent an email on 20.01.2016 along with sample of Hadud/property certificate and asked for submission of the same on that pattern. The complainant also managed to submit the said certificate on 25.01.2016. After taking all the necessary documents and loan application, the complainant was not informed about the status of the loan. The complainant so many times requested the OPs and called up the OPs time and again to sanction the loan amount. Ultimately the OPs sanctioned a loan amount of Rs.14,00,000/-, which was much less than the required amount  as assured by the OPs to the complainant. When the complainant raised protest in this regard, the official of OP No.2, namely; Varun Grover, suggested her to clear LP of her father-in-law for increasing the loan amount. This fact was not disclosed earlier to the complainant by the OPs.  The complainant under compulsion cleared the loan of her father-in-law by depositing an amount of Rs.1,51,503/- with the OPs on 08.02.2016.  Resultantly, the loan amount was increased to Rs.16,80,000/- and the same was sanctioned vide their letter dated 09.02.2016. An amount of Rs.11,450/- had been charged by the OPs as processing fee from the complainant.  After sanction of loan, the complainant contacted the consultant S.I.E.C., Ludhiana and told them to proceed further to complete the formalities with the University "La Trobe" Melbourne.  In response to that, the consultant demanded to get the fee transferred to the said University.  Accordingly, the complainant again approached the OPs for disbursement of loan as early as possible as the last date for depositing the fee was 22.02.2016. But she was shocked to know that still some formalities were to be completed prior to the disbursement of loan amount. The OPs demanded non-encumbrance certificate from the complainant, which is a long process to complete. The OPs again demanded those documents, which were already submitted by the complainant to OP No.1. Due to delay for disbursement of loan amount by the OPs, the time for depositing the fee in Australia expired. As such, the complainant had no other option, but to get stopped the said process of loan from the OPs.  Due to the act and conduct of the OPs, the complainant suffered loss of her study of precious one year and even she was forced to clear the loan of her father in law. Now the fee of university has also been increased by the concerned authorities. The complainant lost opportunity to study abroad, enrich and gain professionally, which is deferred atleast for one year. There is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to pay Rs.15,00,000/- along with interest as compensation for suffering loss of reputation, mental tension, pain, unnecessary and uncalled for harassment at the hands of OPs and further to refund Rs.11,450 /- with interest, which were paid by her as processing fee.
3. The complaint is contested by the OPs, who filed joint written reply. In reply to complaint, OPs raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the present complaint is not maintainable against the OPs;  the present complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious; the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands and suppressed true and material facts from this Forum. As regards the facts of the complaint, OPs stated that the complainant had applied for education loan of Rs.18,00,000/- for a loan tenure of 15 years with OP No.1 on 28.12.2015. The branch called for the Edu Loan ASL RO, who visited the branch for the collection of documents but the documents were incomplete. That ASL communicated the same to the branch head and to the complainant regarding pending documents which were provided by the complainant when called for. The legal advisor of the branch advised the complainant to provide the 'Hadood Certificate' from the concerned Municipal Council for the proper identification of the property which was to be mortgaged with the bank. The said certificate, was supplied by the complainant on 15.01.2016.  In the said certificate, the dimensions of the property i.e. North, East, West and South were missing besides the Map Registration number and Map Registration date.  The complainant submitted the revised Hadood Certificate on 27.01.2016.  The said certificate was sent to Technical Agency for the issuance of the Valuation Report.  The valuation report was submitted by the Technical Agency on 01.02.2016. The loan amounting to Rs.14,00,000/- for loan tenure of 10 years was sanctioned to the complainant on 06.02.2016. The complainant raised dispute demanding increase in sanctioned loan amount on the same day. The complainant was asked to clear off the outstanding personal loan reflecting in the CIBIL. The complainant closed the loan account and the education loan was again reprocessed and revised sanction letter of Rs.16,80,000/- with tenure of 10 years was issued on 09.02.2016. The complainant was requested to withdraw the letter and email, but she refused to do so, which led to delay. Thereafter on 17.02.2016 the complainant approached OPs for release of Ist installment of Rs.13,00,000/-. Then after scrutinizing the papers on 18.02.2016, it was found that complainant had not submitted the NEC i.e. Non Encumbrance Certificate, which was required for disbursement of laon and the complainant was immediately informed about this.  The complainant provided the scan copy of the NEC on what's app on 19.02.2016 at 2:45 P.M. and submitted the hard copy at 5:00 P.M., whereas the cut off time for disbursement is 2:00 P.M.  The TT (Foreign Emittance) was not possible on 20.02.2016 and 21.02.2016 due to Saturday and Sunday since Dollar rates are not available due to closure of stock market.  The TT was to be made on the next working day i.e. 23.02.2016 as 22.02.2016 was holiday in Chandigarh. Thereafter the complainant refused for the disbursement of loan. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex. C-1, true copies of documents Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-24, copy of pass book of  complainant Ex. C-25, copy of pass book of Nilot Pal Ex. C-26, copy of letter Ex. C-27 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Megha Kamal Preet Ahluwalia, Ex. OP-1, copy of sanction letter Ex. OP-2 and closed the evidence.
5. Ld. counsel for the complainant argued that the documents required for sanction of education loan were submitted by the complainant as per the check list provided by the OPs. However, the bank demanded the same documents time and again and the complainant provided every document demanded by the OPs. Offer letter of the Australia University was also attached with the case on the day the documents for advance of loan were submitted first time with the OPs. In the University offer letter, last date for submission of fees etc was also mentioned. Inspite of these facts, the loan could not be disbursed to the complainant on time and the complainant had to request the OPs for closure of loan case.  Complainant suffered on this account as her  precious year of study in Australia wasted.
6. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for the OPs argued that the complainant could not complete all the formalities on time. OPs used to inform the complainant regarding short comings in the documents and the complainant completed the documents after passage of time. The delay is attributed to the complainant and not the OPs. Ld. counsel argued for dismissal of the complaint.
7. We have gone through the written arguments, evidence produced, pleadings and oral arguments. We are of the opinion that the OPs have committed deficiency in service as the complainant had submitted all the documents as per the check-list provided by the OPs. But the OPs demanded more documents time and again like the Hadood certificate, Non-Encumbrance Certificate, clearance of loan account of co-applicant reflected in the CIBIL etc, which took time to the extent that the last date for submission of fee passed. These days, in fact, check lists complete in all respect are given to the customers who intend to raise loan etc and the intending customers submit documents as per the check list. Thereafter, the status of documents can be readily checked up on computer and if found okay, the quantum of loan to be sanctioned can be assessed very easily. But in the present case, the things happened contrary. Inspite of the fact that the last date for submission of fee to the Australian University was known to the OPs, the loan case could not be processed/ finalized by the bank in time. Hence, we accept this complaint and direct the OPs to pay Rs.15,000/- to the complainant as compensation for harassment and litigation charges along with Rs.11450/- charged by the bank as processing fee( which proved un-gainful). This order be complied within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In case the OPs fail to comply with the order within the stipulated period, OPs shall pay interest @ 9% p.a. till its realization.
8. The arguments on the complaint were heard on 24.05.2018 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated: 01.06.2018