COMPLAINT FILED: 29.12.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 11th FEBRUARY 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 2831/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Pramod Kumar Jain,<br /> A-112, Splendor Habitat,<br /> Brookefields,<br /> Bangalore – 560 037.<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY The Senior Manager,<br /> M/s. Can Fin Homes Limited,<br /> M M Complex, 1st Floor,<br /> 150/E, 17th Main,<br /> East of Chord Road,<br /> Vijaynagar,<br /> Bangalore – 560 040.<br /> <br /> <br /> Advocate (M.V. Kini)<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund Rs.22,753/- collected towards the processing of the loan along with interest and pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> Complainant being lured away with the promises and facilities offered by the OP while sanctioning the home loan, thought of taking loan from OP to purchase a house. In that regard he contacted the OP on 10.10.2008. In order to process the loan OP sought for the payment of one time fees. He trusted OP’s words and gave a blank cheque, later on OP converted the said cheque as a process fee payment to the tune of Rs.22,753/- encashed the same. But thereafter complainant was unable to purchase the said house because of some personal inconvenience and non-co-operation of the seller. Hence he intimated the OP to cancel the so called loan sanctioned to him and refund the process fee paid by him. Though OP sanctioned the alleged loan, but it did not give a breathing time to him to comply the other terms and conditions. So the sanction is only to avoid their obligation and responsibility. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to refund the said amount, went in futile. Thus he felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version mainly contending that the allegations made in the complaint are all false and frivolous. The complainant actively took part in home loan mela conducted at Koramangala Indoor Stadium and having understood the terms and conditions, rate of interest, processing fees submitted the loan application on 06.10.2008 seeking for a loan of Rs.81,00,000/-. Before sanctioning such a huge loan OP is bound to take the legal opinion, assess the property value, title, etc. It is also made clear to the complainant that the process fee once paid is not refundable when the loan is sanctioned. OP being satisfied with the title to the said property sanctioned the loan and addressed the sanction letter on 28.10.2008 directing the complainant to comply other formalities, but he failed to comply the same. At the request of the complainant some breathing time was given, but the complainant is unable to purchase the said property in view of some differences with the seller. The so called agreement to sell came to be cancelled. Complainant did not avail the said loan because of cancellation of his agreement, for that OP cannot be blamed. Whatever the amount OP is collected towards the processing the loan has been spent for the said purpose. Under such circumstances OP is not obliged to refund the same. The complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the reliefs now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant applied for home loan of Rs.81,00,000/- on 06.10.2008 before OP basing on the agreement to sell. OP promised to sanction the said loan after making the local inspection, obtaining the legal opinion, verification of the title, search report, credit information of the borrower, etc. According to the complainant he has complied all the terms and conditions, but unfortunately he could not purchase the said property because of the cancellation of the agreement to sale by the so called seller. Hence he requested the OP to refund the processing fee. According to the complainant the so called loan sanction letter has reached him on 28.10.2008 directing him to comply the other requirements by 31.10.2008 which was humanly impossible. OP with a view to shirk their responsibility and obligation sent the said sanction letter with ulterior motive. Thus complainant felt the deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 7. The fact that OP collected the said huge amount of Rs.22,753/- for processing the said loan is not at dispute. According to OP after verification of the property records, search report, credit information and legal opinion they sanctioned the loan and released the loan, in that regard they sent a letter to the complainant. According to them the said letter is dated 28.10.2008. Complainant was asked to comply certain terms and conditions before 31.10.2008. So the time granted by the OP for compliance of other terms and conditions, in our view is not just and reasonable. It is practically impossible to comply such terms and conditions within a span of day or two, that too when a huge sum of Rs.81,00,000/- is alleged to have been sanctioned. So all these facts made the complainant helpless in availing the said loan sanctioned by the OP.<br /> <br /> 8. When the OP has not released the said loan when complainant has not enjoyed the said huge amount even for a month or two, in our view OP is not justified in retaining the entire processing fees. Of course OP has produced some legal opinion, the inspection report, etc., for that it must have spent some money. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the justice will be met by directing the OP to refund atleast the 50% of the processing fees along with some litigation cost. <br /> <br /> 9. Complainant for no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss because of personal inconveniences as well as unavoidable circumstances, for that he cannot be penalized to forego the entire processing fees. OP has nothing to lose because complainant has not enjoyed the said loan amount alleged to have been sanctioned by it. When he sought for the cancellation of the said loan OP would have with all fairness conceded to the same and refunded certain processing fees, but it failed to do so. Here also we find the deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 10. In view of the discussions made by us in the above said paras, we find it is a fit case wherein the complainant deserves certain relief. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to refund Rs.11,000/- to the complainant out of the processing fee of Rs.22,753/- and pay a litigation cost of Rs.500/-. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication. <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 11th day of February 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> p.n.g. <br />