Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that he approached and applied for House Loan amounting of Rs. 7,00,000/- for Renovation and Addition of existing house property which is owned by mother of the complainant namely Smt. Bina Dutta and that in response of the application for House Loan the op/Bank made formal sanction of loan of Rs. 6,27,179/- on or about dated 20.12.2013. But the said Bank already received process fees of Rs. 7,018/-, searching fees of Rs. 1,600/-, advance EMI and their after started debiting complainant’s Bank A/C being No. 33015499112 with the State Bank of India on account of Pre-EMI without any disbursement of fund to the complainant.
The original title Deed of House property was misplaced and not traceable inspite of all the efforts and the incidents were reported to the Police Station vide Dire No. 354 dated 14.04.2014 and also responded to op/Bank. The matter was brought to the notice of the op/Bank and they advised the complainant to publish in advertisement about lost of documents in the newspapers and as per advise of the op, complainant made advertisement for loss of Deed in the Statesmen (English & Bengali) on 21.04.2014 but in spite of all compliance made by the complainant, op/Bank neglected to disburse fund to him and without any reasonable cause and justification but regularly debiting payment for EMI without disbursement fund to the complainant inspite of his objection vide mail dated 11.04.2014, 14.04.2014, 22.04.2014, 23.04.2014, 16.05.2014, 19.05.2014 & 05,06.2014 and in fact by that act op neglected the disbursement of fund to complainant inspite of repeated demand notice and request sent by the complainant registered post with A/D on 07.06.2014 and in the above circumstances, complainant being harassed and for unjustifiable act of the op for either disbursement amount of Rs. 6,27,179/- or to refund of entire processing fees expenses etc. as per list that is Annexure-B along with interest and compensation for harassment and prayed for redressal.
On the other hand op Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. appeared and filed written statement and submitted that no doubt complainant applied for Housing Loan on 20.11.2013 vide loan application No. 0016 and said application was considered. Therefore, cancelled since the applicant failed to provide the required documents to apply for the loan. The applicant reapplied for the housing loan on 11.12.2013 vide application No. 00931164 and the loan amounting to Rs. 6,27,179/- which was sanctioned on 13.12.2013. but again complainant failed to avail the disbursement of the loan within stipulated time of 90 days, and the file again was re-sectioned on the request of the complainant on 29.03.2014 vide application No. 00966197 to facilitate the applicant to take the loan from DHFL towards self-construction of the house and the file was sanctioned in principle and the disbursement was processed on 31.03.2014. The complainant was asked to submit Gift Deed being No. 6626 dated 22.11.2013 and also prior deed No. 5530 dated 11.08.1993 to avail disbursement cheque. But the applicant failed to provide the prior deed No. 5530 in spite of assurances and fact remains complainant, without the knowledge of the op DHFL initiated a lost deed process by filing a GD at the local police station for missing document in April, 2014 and published newspaper notification towards lost deed. But complainant did not file certain documents seven in numbers.
Inspite of regular follow up over phone and through e-mails, complainant did not submit the documents. So the account was cancelled and reversed in the books on 20.05.2014. So the entire allegation of the complainant is false and fabricated and op never advised for publication and never advised for lodging complaint but admitted that sanctioned loan amount was not disbursed to the complainant since complainant failed to comply the terms and conditions of the sanctioned loan and failed to supply required documents and it is further submitted that the debiting of the amounts as mentioned in paragraph-4 of the said complaint was well within the knowledge of the complainant and the same being part of the terms and conditions of the sanction of the loan by the op. So, there is no cause of action and so the present complaint should be dismissed.
Decision with reasons
After hearing the complainant and also considering the complaint including the written version and BNA of the op, we are convinced to hold that complainant filed application praying for loan and timely loan was sanctioned by the op on 13.12.2013 against application No. 00931164 amounting to Rs.6,27,179/-. But from the op’s written version it is found that the said sanctioned loan was cancelled and the amount was not disbursed. But from the op’s written version at Page-5, it is clear that op has been deducting EMI and other EMIs were deducted. But question of deducting of EMI does not arise in view of the fact that loan had not been disbursed and the said sanctioned order has been cancelled by the op. So, act of the op in deducting the EMI and not refunding entire amount already received by this op are completely against the rule of law.
Another factor is that when loan amount has not been disbursed then op has no legal right to deduct any sort of amount which has been deposited by the complainant for the purpose of disbursement of amount and that amount must be paid to the complainant by the op. Most interesting factor is that it is undisputed fact that the loan has not been disbursed but even then EMI has been deducted that is no doubt unfair trade practice on the part of the op and that has been followed by the op and it is fact that complainant already deposited Rs. 33,074/- to the op for different reasons. But when loan has not been disbursed and loan sanctioned order has been cancelled, then it is the duty of the op to refund that amount.
At the same time it is the legal and bounden duty to refund all other amount which has been deducted from the account of the complainant along with interest. Most interesting factor is that in this case after filing of the written version op did not file E/chief. Though all papers even E/chief of the complainant was sent by registered post with A/D and postal report reveals that it is served upon op. But op did not take any step. Though, op was given a chance to make question, but op did not file any questionier. Thereafter the case was heard accordingly and argument was ultimately heard on 01.12.2014.
So, considering all the above fact and also considering the written version we are confirmed that complainant has been suffered by deceitful manner on the act of the op and the manner of deduction of EMI without disbursing loan and even after cancelling the sanctioned order. So, the allegation as made by the complainant against the op is proved beyond any manner of doubt.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest (when written version and BNA has been filed with cost of Rs.5,000/-.
Op is hereby directed to refund or return Rs. 33,074/- which has been received by the op for the purpose of preparing loan and for other purpose and further directed the op to refund the entire amount which has been deducted from the account of the complainant as EMI along with interest and the entire decretal amount shall be paid to the complainant by the op within 30 days from the date of this order failing which for each day’s delay op shall have to pay punitive damages at the rate Rs. 200/- per day till full satisfaction of this decree and if it is collected it shall be deposited to this Forum’s account.
Op is directed to comply the order very strictly within stipulated time and for noncompliance and disobeyance of Forum’s order this penal proceeding u/s 27 of C.P. Act 1986 may be started against them for implementation of the decree.
