Orissa

Cuttak

CC/81/2022

Sridhar Biswal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager,HDFC Bank Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

self

21 Mar 2023

ORDER

            IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.81/2022

 

           Sri Sridhar Biswal,

           At:Alangapur,Astarang,Puri,

           At present at Plot No.7D/1218,

           CDA-9,Cuttack. 

                                                                                   ... Complainant.

          Vrs.

 

1.       The Branch Manager,

HDFC Bank Ltd.,1^st Floor,Plot No.99,

Vivekanand Lane,Badambadi,

Kathajodi Rd,Cuttack-753012.

 

2.       The Regional Manager,

             HDFC Bank Ltd.,2^nd Floor,Amazon Building,

             636 & 636,Behera Sahi,Nayapali,

             Bhubaneswar-751012.

 

3.         The Managing Director,

HDFC Bank Ltd.,, 1^st Floor,C.S No.6/242,

Senapati Bapat Marg,Lower Parel,

                 Mumbai-400013,Maharastra.                                                     ...Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:            Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                             Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    08.09.2022

Date of Order:  21.03.2023

 

For the complainant:            Self.

For the O.Ps              :            None.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

          Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that in order to construct a house the complainant had sought for financial assistance from the O.Ps who had made enquiry and had asked for various documents from the complainant.  They had also granted housing loan of Rs.30,00,000/- in favour of the son of the complainant.  When the complainant started construction of his house by collecting the construction materials as required and demanded the initial amount of Rs.10,00,000/- from the O.Ps, they denied to disburse the said amount and had asked for the ROR of the land in question.  But the complainant could not provide the same as it was not available for which the loan was not given to him. The complainant has approached this Commission by filing this case seeking direction to the O.Ps to return all his xerox copies of documents with a declaration by them for non-use of those in future without permission from him and to submit explanation as to why the sanctioned loan was refused,  further with  compensation and any other reliefs as deemed fit and proper.

Together with the complainant petition, the complainant has filed copies of several documents in order to prove his case.

2.       Having not contested this case, the O.Ps were set exparte vide order dt.12.7.2022.

3.       The points for determination in this case are as follows:

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps ?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed?

Issue No.ii.

Out of the three points, point no.ii being the most pertinent issue is taken up first for consideration here in this case.

The complainant has alleged through his complaint petition to have sustained huge financial loss due to the O.Ps as because they have sanctioned a loan of Rs.30,00,000/- towards housing loan in his favour but had subsequently refused to disburse the same.  He has filed copies of the said sanctioned letter given to him by the O.Ps vide Annexure-2 series alongwith his complaint petition.  The same when perused, it is noticed that at the very first page there is endorsement to the effect that “this loan approval is subject to legal and technical clearance of the property being financed; including valuation of the property as assessed by the HDFC Ltd.”  Thus, when the complainant has failed to provide the ROR as sought for by the O.Ps, and when the O.Ps could not be aware about the owner of the land by not disbursing the sanctioned loan amount will not entitle the O.Ps to be deficient in their service towards the complainant.  Accordingly, this point goes in favour of the O.Ps.

 

Points no.i & iii.

From the discussions as made above, it can never be said here in this case that the case of the complainant is maintainable and the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed by him. Hence it is so ordered;

ORDER

Case is dismissed exparte against the O.Ps and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 21^st day of March,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.          

                                                                                                                        Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                   President

 

 

                                                                                                        Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                         Member

.