ORDER

 Complainant availed     Rs 1,65,00,000/. It is alleged  by the
complainant that he received a sum of rupees 72.16 lacs vide  D.D.
dated 11th May 2012  on 18th May 2012.   It is further alleged  by the
complainant that the OP charged interest for the aforesaid amount from
1.5.2012 instead from 18.5.2012.

     It is also alleged by the complainant that the rest of the
sanctioned amount of Rs. 89,70,270/- was received by him on 5.6.2012 ,
whereas the OP has charged the interest on the aforesaid amount as
well from 1.5.2012.

     It is alleged by the complainant that the OP had charged per day
interest i.e. of Rs. 6,325/- on the entire sanctioned amount from
1/5/2012, whereas it was entitled  to charge interest on a sum of Rs.
72.16 Lacs from  11.5.2012 , and on a sum of Rs. 89,702,70/- from
5.6.2012 i.e. date of receiving of cheque.

     It is alleged by the complainant that non-reversal of the
interest amount charged by the OP amounts to deficiency in services.
Hence, this complaint.

       The OP has contested the complaint and has filed a written
sstatement.  It has claimed any deficiency in service  on its part and
has claimed that the complaint is false and misleading.  Para no. 4-8
of the parawise reply of the written statement is relevant for the
purpose of the decision of this complaint and is reproduced as under:-

Para 4-8  The averment of the corresponding paragraph is denied for wrong and

Incorrect . It is humbly submitted that the loan was sanctioned by the
Respondent on 30.04.2014. As per the loan documents, the EMI was to
start from the May 2012 which was duly agreed by the Complainant. The
Complainant was required to comply with the pre-disbursal formalities
.i.e. completion of the loan closure formalities with GE Money
submission of the property documents with the Respondent, providing
the details of the modes of disbursement etc. However, the Complainant
delayed in the same and as a result of the same there was delay in
disbursement. The said delay was solely on account of the failure of
the Complainant to meet the requirements at his end. At this juncture
it would be pertinent to mention that the Respondent was ready and
willing to disburse the amounts on the said date i.e. 30.04.2012 which
is duly recorded in the disbursal memo. Even the repayment schedule
given to the Complainant duly stated that the EMI would start from May
2012. As such any delay caused in disbursal on account of failure of
the Complainant himself to comply with the requirements cannot be
attributed to the Respondent and no relief/rebate can be claimed on
this account. The interest charged from the Complainant is strictly in
terms of the agreed loan agreement. If there is delay in performance
of his obligation by the Complainant, the same cannot to taken against
the Respondent who had already performed its obligation and was
willing to perform the same as on the agreed date. Without prejudice
it is further submitted that the DD /Cheque issued by the Respondent
is of prior date than the date of disbursal as claimed by the
Complainant which also establishes the delay on part of the Claimant.
Copy of the loan agreement is attached herewith as Annexure-R/2.



  The OP has contested the complaint on merits and has admitted that
the complainant was sanctioned loan for a sum of Rs. 1,65,00,000/- on
30.4.2012. It has denied that the  interest was charged prior to date
of the disbursal of the loan. OP has prayed for the dismissal of the
complaint.

     We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record.

     The learned counsel for the OP had admitted that the loan was
sanctioned to the complainant  on 30.4.2012 and was actually disbursed
on 11.5.2012 for a sum of Rs. 72.16 Lacs and rest of the payment of
Rs. 89.70 Lacs was made on 5.6.2012. He has, however , claimed that
since the complainant had failed to complete the necessary formalities
for the disbursal of laon, it had resulted in the delay in disbursal.
He has contended that since the complainant was himself to blame for
the delay in disbursal of the loan , there was no deficiency in
services on  the part of the OP. We, however, do not agree. If there
were some formalities required to be undertaken by the complainant
before the disbursal of the laon, the OP should have ensured the same
before sanctioning the loan to him. It could not have delayed the
disbursal of the loan and simultaneously charge interest from the back
date i.e. the date of sanction of the loan.

     We , therefore, hold OP deficient in rendering services to the
complainant for having charged interest w.e.f. 30.4.2012 on the loan
amounts which was actually disbursed on 11.5.2012 and 5.6.2012
respectively.

     We direct OP as under:

1.  Redraw the statement of account in respect of the loan account of
the complainant with the date of the payment of loan as 11.5.2012 for
a sum of Rs. 72.16 Lac and 5-6-2012 for a sum of Rs. 89.70 Lac from
which  date interest will be charged and to refund to the complainant
interest charged in excess.

2.  Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for
pain and agony suffered by him.

  3.Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation.

  The OP shall pay this amount within a period of 30 days from the
date of this order failing which they shall be liable to pay interest
on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum.  IF the OP company fails
to comply with this order, the complainant may approach this Forum for
execution of the order under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection
Act.



     Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule.

  Files be consigned to record room.

Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................