Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/68/2014

SHANMUGAM - Complainant(s)

Versus

BRANCH MANAGER, SBI - Opp.Party(s)

PARTY IN PERSON

10 Apr 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

BEFORE        Thiru. A.K.ANNAMALAI            PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER 

                        Tmt. P. BAKIYAVATHI                                                    MEMBER

 

F.A.NO. 68/2014

                (Against order in  C.C. No.42/2011 dated 29.11.2013,

                        on the file of the DCDRF,Thiruvallur)

 

                       DATED THIS THE 10^th  DAY OF APRIL 2015

V.Shanmugam

S/o Late K.Varadaraja Mudaliar

Hindu, aged 70 years residing at

58/18, Manali New Town

Chennai 600 103                       ..Applicant-in-person/complainant

                                      Vs

The Branch Manager

State Bank of India

Edayanchavadi Branch

Chennai 600 103                     ..Respondent/opp.party

   

For Applicant-in-person/complainant              : Appellant in person

For Respondent/opp.party                             : served called absent

 

The complainant is the appellant. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, the Complainant/Appellant filed this appeal praying to set aside the order of the District Forum in CC.No. 42/2011, dated 29.11.2013 .   

          This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 27.3.2015 upon hearing the arguments on both side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order. 

                                   ORDER

THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.     The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.

 

2.    The complainant applied a loan for Rs.9.5 lakhs under mortgage loan on 23.2.2009 to the opposite party for which a sum of Rs.2500/- was collected as processing fee and the Manager of the opposite party bank refused to grant the entire loan at a time and thereby the complainant demanded for refund of processing  fee with 18% p.a. interest and in spite of approaching Banking Ombudsmen as it was not favoured, the complainant filed the consumer complaint to claim refund of Rs.2500/- with 18% p.a interest and Rs.90,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.5000/- as cost.

 

3.         The opposite party denied the allegations except to admit the collection of Rs.2500/- as process fee which are to be paid for the purpose of valuing Engineer fee and legal fee and never refused to grant the loan except to sanction the same at the rate of 50%  of the Reverse Mortgage loan as in this type of loan lump sum amount is not available and the balance lump sum amount is required to be paid in  monthly installments as per the direction of Retail Assets Central Processing Center, Chennai.  Since the fee for valuation and for legal opinion were already paid from the processing fee collected it cannot be refunded which was informed to the complainant and thereby there was no deficiency in service on their part.

 

 4.              On the basis of both side material and after an enquiry, the District Forum accepted the contention of the opposite party and also dismissed the complaint.

 

  5.         Aggrieved by the impugned order, the complainant filed this appeal contending that the District Forum erroneously dismissed the complaint. The opposite party/Branch Manager does not follow the guidelines of RBI for lenders. They have  failed to disclose to the borrower, all  information about the fee/charges payable for processing the loan application, the amount of fee refundable if loan amount is not sanctioned . The bank is erred in not including these details in the loan application form, when the complainant clearly mentioned for getting only a lump sum amount as loan amount which was not considered by the bank and thereby the appeal to be allowed.

 

6.      When the appeal is taken up for arguments, the opposite parties even though received of service of notice remained absent and the appellant /party in person submitted the written arguments and submitted oral argument also. On careful consideration of materials and perusal of the District Forum order, it is the only dispute that the complainant having paid process fee of Rs.2500/- for the consideration of his lumsum loan of Rs.9.5.lakhs at one time mortgage loan, but the opposite party after processing the same, granting the loan, but willing to pay at a time only 50% of the loan at the beginning and subsequently through monthly installments as per the direction of Retail Assests Central Processing Centre, Chennai under Ex.B.4 and they refused to grant the loan to the complainant. Further it is stated that the process fee, collected for process, the banks stated that the legal and valuation fees had been paid from the same to the legal advisor and valuer and therefore it cannot be refunded as detailed under Ex.B.4.

 

7.       Hence it is clear that the opposite parties has exercised their duty in proper manner in processing the loan application from the complainant and on receipt of processing fee and also granted the loan but the complainant had not willing to receive the same in installments and wanted to avail the entire loan in one lumsum for which the bank/opposite party are not agreed under the rules and regulations and thereby we are of the view, only the complainant is in default in not availing the loan from  the bank and not causious relating to the terms and condition of the loan before paying the  process fee and applying for the same and thereby we find no error or infirmity in the order passed by the District Forum in this regard and the appeal having no merits which is to be dismissed as devoid of merits.

 

               In the result, this appeal is dismissed, confirming the order of

the District Forum, Thiruvallur in C.C.No. 42/2011 dated  13.12.2013.

 

          No order as to costs in this appeal.

 

 

P.BAKIYAVATHI                                                                                  A.K.ANNAMALAI          

 MEMBER                                                                               PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER