Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
1. This Consumer Complaint has been received by transfer vide order dated 26.11.2021 of Hon’ble President, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh under section 48 of CPA Act, vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 from District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana to District Consumer Commission, Moga to decide the same in Camp Court at Ludhiana and said order was ordered to be affected from 14th March, 2022.
2. The complainants have filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) on the allegations that in the month of May, 2017 for passing a home loan for purchasing a plot and for constructing the same under the Government Scheme Pardhan Manti Aawaas Yojna. The complainants approached to the opposite parties alongwith all necessary documents for home loan purpose. The opposite party no.2 checked all documents and after inspecting documents assured the complainants that the loan for purchasing the plot cum construction of the same will be sanctioned soon under the scheme Pardhan Mantri Aawaas Yojna. The opposite party no.2 also demanded 2 percent commission fees of total loan amount in condition to after sanctioning the loan, from the complainants. The complainants agreed to pay the commission fee of loan amount to the opposite party no.2 in condition to avoid harassment for loan purpose. Thereafter the opposite party no.2 take all the necessary documents from the complainants. After two weeks the complainants again visited at the office of opposite parties to know the status of their file. Opposite Party No.2 again assured that their loan will be sanctioned in short span under the scheme Pardhan Mantri Aawaas Yojna. The complainants also gave Rs.2900/- for loan process fees to opposite party no. 2 as he demanded a mandatory fee and which was presumed to be a non-refundable fee. On 22-6-2017 Opposite Party No.2 called to complainants and told them that their loan has been sanctioned for amount of Rs.7,18,650/ and he also demanded Rs.7,000/- from the complainants in the shape of commission fee. After receiving the call of opposite party no. 2 the complainants reached immediately at the office of opposite parties. The
opposite party no.2 gave the Xerox copy of sanction letter dated 21-6-2017 to the complainants and received Rs.7000/ from the complainants in the shape of commission for loan. The complainants also asked from
opposite party no.2 about the loan process under scheme Pardhan Manti Aawaas Yojna, and Opposite Party No.2 assured again to the complainants that after disbursement of all amount of loan, it will be converted into Pardhan Mantri Aawaas Yojna scheme under the period of 3-4 months. Thereafter Opposite Party No.2 demanded a numbers of necessary documents from the complainants and gave the list of complainant's necessary documents to the complainants. It is mentioned here that the opposite party no.2 compelled the complainants that they have to do an agreement to sell off the property with the property owner. However, according to assurance of opposite party no.2 the complainants agreed to do an agreement to sell and they executed an agreement to sell dated 17-7-2017 with Sh. Harish Talwar The property owner received Rs.1,00,000/- as an earnest money from the complainants for the execution and and registration of sale between the parties was fixed as on or before 7-9-2017. According to the rules and regulation of D.H.F.L. for home loan, rest of the sale consideration was to be paid by the authorities of D.H.F.L. to the property owner Sh. Harish Talwar at the time of execution and registration of sale deed at Sub Registrar Office, Ldh., on dated 7-9-2017 through cheque amount. On 12-8-2017 the complainants also gave a sum of Rs.6000/- to the opposite party no.2 for preparation of some others necessary documents for home loan purpose. Thereafter opposite party no.1 and 2 started harassing the complainants and they called the complainants again and again and demanded various documents from them without telling any specific reason. Thus, from the date of execution of the agreement to sell dated till the date of 31-8-2017 opposite party no.1 and 2 harassed the complainants many times. On 31-8-2017 opposite party no.1 and 2 again called the complainants at their office along with remaining documents and cheque book of account. The complainants reached at the office of opposite parties along with remaining prepared documents and cheque book of account no. 65245150748 of State Bank of India, Branch Phullanwal, Ludhiana. After receiving remaining prepared documents and Nine self signed blank cheques (cheques no.340071,340072,340073,340074, 340075,
340076, 340077, 340078, 340079) from complainant no.1 Rajvir Kaur the opposite party no.2 assured her that the first payment of cheque of loan will be disbursed or issued today and same will be handover to the company's authorized person for execution and registration of the sale deed in their favour on or before the last date of agreement i.e. 7-9-2017 and after giving this assurance the opposite party no.2 compelled the complainants to signed some documents and papers of loan. Upon the faith of the opposite party no.1 and 2 the complainants signed various documents and papers of loan and during the process of signing the documents the complainants remain stayed in the office of the opposite parties till 9.30 P.M. During that time the opposite party no.1 and 2 and your staff members intentionally gave mental and physical the harassment to the complainants without any solid reason. Thereafter, on same day at the time of 9.30 PM after spending a long valuable time at the office of opposite parties they told the complainants that they can go to their home now. They also do not told any specific date of issuing the cheque and cheque amount for execution and registration of the sale deed in favour of the complainants. Thereafter, during the period of 31-8-2017 to 6-9-2017 the complainants visited many times at the office of opposite parties but to grab the more amount in the shape of loan commission/bribe from the complainants, the opposite party no.1 and 2 made several lame excuses and with the bad intention they did not describe any single reason for delaying the process for issuing and hand over the cheque of loan amount to their lawful authority for execution and registration of the deed in the favour of the complainants. The complainants requested to the opposite party no.1 and 2 that the date of execution and registration of the sale deed is mentioned on the agreement is 7-9-2017 and if the cheque of the loan amount shall not be hand over to the seller (Harish Talwar) till date then the agreement will be cancelled. But the opposite party no.1 and 2 refused to accede the genuine requests of the complainants and the opposite party no.2 clearly told to the complainants, "It is now depends upon you and it is your headache that how can you solve the matter of your cheque loan amount." In this way the opposite parties have failed to provide the service to the complainants as per terms and conditions of the company. This is the most glaring example of gross negligence, one cannot expect such a blunder from the high reputed international company, which has good named and also has earned big fame in the finance sector of whole world and on the other hand the opposite parties exploiting the customers who have good faith in their service, which has been put to mud by their conduct. Hence the complainants have suffered immense harassment and tension at the hands of opposite parties, which cannot be compensated in terms of money. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
a) The Opposite Parties may be directed to pay Rs.1 lakh as compensation/ damages for the cancellation amount of agreement to sell and Rs.60,000/- as compensation/ damages for construction/ building material and a sum fo Rs.10 lakhs on account of mental as well as physical harassment, torture given to the complainants and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the complainant has attempted to misguide and mislead this District Consumer Commission. It is submitted that Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 is not providing any services to the complainant as the complainant was never a consumer of Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 and no services were provided by Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 to the complainants. It is only after the disbursement of the loan amount that the complainant could have claimed herself to be consumer. Moreover, the complainant has not disclosed that the loan amount was not disbursed due to non fulfilment of necessary conditions and non compliances of the terms and condition by the complainants. The complainant has attempted to play fraud with the Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 by presenting manipulated agreement to sell. At the time of filing the application for grant of loan facility, an agreement to sell dated 13.06.2017 was submitted for a total sale consideration of Rs.9 lakhs wherein Rs.2 lakhs was paid as earnest money. Upon such submission it was observed that the Khasra Numbers mentioned in the prior title chain was different and the same was intimated to the complainant. The complainant them submitted another agreement to sell dated 17.07.2017 wherein the sale consideration was reduced toRs.7,20,000/- and the earnest money was mentioned as Rs.1 lakh and thus the complainant has attempted to play fraud in relation to public money and the complaint deserves to be out-rightly dismissed. Moreover, there are intricate questions of law and facts which are involved in the present complaint which can be decided only after the lengthy evidence of the witnesses is recorded and said witnesses are cross examined and also requires production of various documents which is beyond the purview of this District Consumer Commission and can only be decided by the Hon’ble Civil Court. On merits, Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 took up almost the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections and hence it is prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. In order to prove his case, the complainants have tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CA and CB alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 and closed their evidence.
5. On the other hand, Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 have tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RA alongwith copies of documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R10 and closed evidence on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 & 3.
6. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties on the miscellaneous application as well as on main complaint and also gone through the documents placed on record.
7. Ld.counsel for the Complainant as well as ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 have mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint as well as in application moved by the parties. We have perused the rival contention of the ld.counsel for the parties. The only contention of the complainant is that Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 have committed display and not sanctioned the loan as agreed despite fetching hefty amount by the agent of Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 i.e. Opposite Party No.2 and hence there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties who are in connivance with each other and played a fraud with the innocent complainants by fetching huge amount on the ground of sanctioning the loan for the purchase of the plot. On the other hand, ld.counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 has repelled the aforesaid contention of the complainants on the ground that first of all, Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 is not providing any services to the complainant as the complainant was never a consumer of Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 and no services were provided by Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 to the complainants. It is only after the disbursement of the loan amount that the complainant could have claimed herself to be consumer. Moreover, the complainant has not disclosed that the loan amount was not disbursed due to non fulfilment of necessary conditions and non compliances of the terms and condition by the complainants. The complainant has attempted to play fraud with the Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 by presenting manipulated agreement to sell. At the time of filing the application for grant of loan facility, an agreement to sell dated 13.06.2017 was submitted for a total sale consideration of Rs.9 lakhs wherein Rs.2 lakhs was paid as earnest money. Upon such submission it was observed that the Khasra Numbers mentioned in the prior title chain was different and the same was intimated to the complainant. The complainant then submitted another agreement to sell dated 17.07.2017 wherein the sale consideration was reduced toRs.7,20,000/- and the earnest money was mentioned as Rs.1 lakh and thus the complainant has attempted to play fraud in relation to public money and the complaint deserves to be out-rightly dismissed. Moreover, there are intricate questions of law and facts which are involved in the present complaint which can be decided only after the lengthy evidence of the witnesses is recorded and said witnesses are cross examined and also requires production of various documents which is beyond the purview of this District Consumer Commission and can only be decided by the Hon’ble Civil Court. Main averment of the Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 is that complainant has attempted to play fraud with the Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 by presenting manipulated agreement to sell. At the time of filing the application for grant of loan facility, an agreement to sell dated 13.06.2017 was submitted for a total sale consideration of Rs.9 lakhs wherein Rs.2 lakhs was paid as earnest money. Upon such submission it was observed that the Khasra Numbers mentioned in the prior title chain was different and the same was intimated to the complainant. The complainant then submitted another agreement to sell dated 17.07.2017 wherein the sale consideration was reduced toRs.7,20,000/- and the earnest money was mentioned as Rs.1 lakh and thus the complainant has attempted to play fraud in relation to public money. Since the dispute seems to be with regard to manipulation of khasra numbers as well as by fetching illegal amount by Opposite Party No.2 from the complainants under the garb of sanctioning the loan and we are of the view that it clearly becomes a case replete with the elements of fraud, cheating (by selling the plot in question by misrepresentation in khasra numbers) and such disputes are certainly not adjudicable before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies because the proceedings before the Consumer fora (now Commission) are summary in nature. In the case in hand complicated questions of fact and law are involved, as has been discussed in an elaborate manner in the preceding paragraphs, as such the parties are required to take their dispute to the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction where the parties can lead elaborate oral and documentary evidence and where they will get an opportunity to examine their witnesses and cross examine the witnesses of other party in order to elicit the truth. Reliance in this regard is placed upon Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Munimahesh Patel 2006(IV) CPJ page 1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :-
Proceedings before the commission are essentially summary in nature and adjudication of issues which involve disputed factual questions should not be adjudicated. It is to be noted that commission accepted that insured was not a teacher. Complainant raised dispute about genuineness of the documents (i.e. proposal forms) produced by the appellant.”
Their lordships have further held that :-
“The nature of the proceedings before the commission as noted above, are essentially in summary nature. The factual position was required to be established by documents. Commission was required to examine whether in view of the disputed facts it would exercise the jurisdiction. The State Commission was right in its view that the complex factual position requires that the matter should be examined by an appropriate court of Law and not by the Commission.”
8. The nature of the dispute, in the present complaint, is squarely covered by the law laid down by their lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgement supra. A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in 1(2004) CPJ page 101 wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission in a revision petition titled as R.D. Papers Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. in para No.7 of the judgement which reads as under:-
“After going through the complaint and the written version, it appears to us that the complaint raises complicated questions of facts which cannot be decided by us in our summary jurisdiction. It may be though the amount in this case is in few lacs and when we are receiving complaints involving crores of rupees, but then enormous evidence would be required in the present case especially in respect of allegation of forgery made by the complainant and denied by the Insurance Company.”
9. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the instant complaint is not maintainable in this District Consumer Commission for its proper adjudication and the same stands dismissed. All applications pending before this District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, if any, stand disposed off accordingly. However, the complainant can get redressal of his grievance from the Civil Court/ or any other competent authority, in accordance with law, for which the time spent before this District Commission shall stand excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled 'Lakshmi Engineering Works vs PSG Industrial Institute reported in 1995(3) SCC 583'. However, keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana and thereafter, the file be consigned to record room after compliance.
10. Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.
This Consumer Complaint was originally filed at District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Now Commission) at Ludhiana and it keep pending over there until Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 has transferred the instant Consumer Complaint alongwith Other Complaints to District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Moga with directions to work on this file onward from 14th March, 2022 and accordingly District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Moga has decided the present complaint at Camp Court, Ludhiana, as early as possible.
Announced in Open Commission at Camp Court, Ludhiana.
