(Delivered on 02/03/2023)

PER SHRI A. Z. KHWAJA, HON’BLE JUDICIAL  MEMBER.`

1.         Appellant –Mahindera Rural Housing Finance Ltd.  has preferred the present  appeal feeling aggrieved by  the judgment and order dated  09/06/2011 passed by the learned District Consumer Commission, Wardha in Consumer Complaint No.  CC/10/2011 by which the complaint filed by the respondent /complainant came to be allowed and directions were given to the appellant to pay compensation of Rs. 30,000/- for mental and physical harassment and to pay Rs. 1,000/- towards cost of litigation. (Appellant and respondent are hereinafter referred to as their original nomenclature)

    2.     Short facts leading to filing of the appeal may be narrated as under,

            Complainant – Mr. Dharmaraj Bhauraoji Wandile claims to be resident Kapsi, Taluka Hinganghat , District Wardha whereas  O.P.  Mahindra Home   Finance is dealing in the business of providing easy loans to the needy persons for housing purposes. The complainant has contended that he was the owner of one house bearing house No. 10/2, admeasuring   25 x50 fts. situated in  Ward No.  1.  The complainant wanted to carry out  permanent  construction of the old house  and so he approached  the O.P. namely  Branch Manager of  Mahindra Home   Finance for seeking  necessary  loan at reasonable  interest.  O.P. namely  the Branch Manager, Mahindra Home   Finance assured  to provide the loan to the complainant  of Rs. 1,20,000/- which was to be repaid  on interest at the rate of 11%. The O.P. also assured that the loan amount was to be repaid within the period of five years. The complainant has contended that  as per  demand  made by the O.P., the complainant  also supplied  all the necessary  documents  namely Tax Receipt, copy of Form No. 8, copy of  Ration Card, Electricity Bill and other  papers  as well as ten blank cheques . The complainant  supplied all  the necessary documents  on 20/12/2009 and also  paid  a sum of Rs. 4700/- by way of  processing fee and receipt  to that  effect was also issued.  The O.P. informed the complainant that  the first installment  of the  loan amount was to be  paid  immediately  on the completion of  construction up to  plinth level. The complainant  has alleged that  accordingly he not only carried out construction of plinth level but  thereafter also  constructed  four rooms  but despite  this fact even  the first  installment  of the loan  was not released to the  complainant  due to which  the complainant  was required  to suffer mental harassment. The complainant thereafter issued the legal notice to the O.P. on 30/12/2010 and same was also duly received but there was no response from the O.P. and loan amount was not disbursed.  The complainant has contended that as the loan amount was not disbursed despite the agreement being executed with the complainant, the complainant suffered huge  mental and physical harassment. The complainant  was also convinced  that  the O.P.- Mahindra Home   Finance has  committed  deficiency in service as well as  Unfair Trade Practice by not releasing  the amount of loan and so  the complainant  filed the  complaint. 

3.         After filing of the complaint  due notice  was issued to the O.P. - Mahindra Home   Finance and same was also duly received but the O.P. failed to  appear despite   service of notice  and so  also failed to file  written version  on  record  and so  complaint  proceeded  exparte against the O.P. 

4.         The learned District Consumer Commission, Wardha thereafter recorded the evidence of the complainant  on affidavit. The complainant has also placed reliance upon the documents as well as written notes of argument. After appreciating  the evidence adduced  by the complainant  on record , the learned District Consumer Commission, Wardha came to the conclusion  that  though  the  complainant  had fulfilled  all the  requirements  and had supplied  all the necessary  documents the O.P. had failed to  release  and disburse   the loan amount and thereby  committed  deficiency in service. The learned District Consumer Commission, Wardha therefore allowed the complaint and directed the O.P.- Mahindera Rural Housing Finance Ltd. to pay compensation of Rs. 30,000/- and also to pay Rs. 1000/- towards cost of litigation.  The learned District Consumer Commission, Wardha also directed that  the O.P.  shall be  liable  for interest  on the amount   at the rate of 9% from 25/01/2011. Against this judgment and order dated 09/06/2011 the present appellant has come up in present  appeal.

5.         After filing of the present appeal, notice  of the appeal  was sent to the  respondent/ complainant  and same was also duly served to the respondent /complainant  but respondent failed to appear and so the appeal proceeded exparte against the respondent/ complainant.

6.         We have heard Mr. Joharapurkar, learned advocate appearing for the appellant. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the appellant  that  the learned District Consumer Commission, Wardha has not appreciated  the  evidence in proper  perspective  and so  has arrived  at finding which is erroneous  in nature.  It is argued by the learned advocate for the appellant that  the learned District Consumer Commission, Wardha has not taken  into consideration  the  fact that  though the complainant – Mr. Dharmaraj Wandile had approached  the O.P. and had entered  into an agreement for granting of loan but subsequently the respondent /complainant  had not supplied  the necessary  and material documents  which were  requisite for disbursing  the loan amount.  It is submitted by the learned advocate for the appellant that the complainant had not produced the Forum No. 8-A (गाव नमुना ८) as well as the necessary permission from Grampanchyat for construction. Further the complainant  had also not submitted  photographs and sanction plan within the stipulated time.  It is argued by the learned advocate for the appellant that  one No Objection Certificate  for  construction  was issued  by the Secretary of Grampanchyat and Sarpanch  but there is nothing  to show  that  the construction was  up to plinth level was completed within stipulated time.  In the light of these submissions, we have carefully gone through the documents placed on record by the complainant before the learned District Consumer Commission, Wardha. If we go through the said documents, we find that the complainant has placed on record one copy of Grampanchyat Tax receipt regarding having paid necessary taxes. Further the complainant has also placed on record one copy of No Objection Certificate issued by the Secretary of Grampanchyat, Kapsi. Perusal of this No Objection Certificate shows that complainant – Dharmaraj Wandile had applied for necessary permission in the month of January-2010 and accordingly, permission was also granted.  No doubt this No Objection Certificate  bare date 30/04/2011 which  shows that  the certificate  was issued  much after  the application was  made by the complainant but  merely on this count No Objection  Certificate cannot  be termed as doubtful when it was  only required for the purpose  of disbursing  the loan.  The complainant has also filed another certificate issued by the Secretary as well as the Sarpanch of Grampanchyat, Kapsi.  In both these certificates it is clearly mentioned that the house No. 10/2 in Ward No. 1 was ancestral  house of the complainant.  Further it is mentioned that the complainant had completed not only the plinth level but had also constructed four rooms. From these  documents  which are  placed on record  it is ample  clear that the complainant  had not only  obtained the necessary  documents  but had also  supplied  the same  to the appellant/O.P.-Mahindra Rural Housing Finance Ltd. Admittedly, the complainant  had applied  for loan of Rs. 1,20,000/-  for purpose of construction  of house which is  dream  of every  Consumer.  It is the  contention of the learned advocate for the appellant that  the  complainant  had not  complied with the necessary  conditions and had  not supplied  the necessary documents within  stipulated  time  as per terms of agreement. In that situation it was obligatory on the part of the appellant /O.P. to place on record the agreement entered into between the parties. Further  it was  also necessary  for the appellant  to place  on record  all the relevant  documents  which could go to show that the respondent/ complainant  had not supplied  the documents  within  stipulated  time. On the other hand the respondent/complainant has placed on record the documents to show that he had complied with the necessary condition. We have also  gone through the judgment  delivered by the learned District Consumer Commission, Wardha and we find  that  the learned District Consumer Commission, Wardha has also  elaborately  dealt with  these aspects and   the learned District Consumer Commission, Wardha has also given finding that  the agreement  entered  with  the complainant  was not placed on record nor any affidavit  regarding  the same  was placed on record. As such in the absence of any documents filed by the appellant / O.P.  no such inference  can be drawn that the  complainant  who was  also Consumer had not supplied necessary  documents  so as to  disentitle  him to get the loan. As such in view of the discussion held above, we do not see any reason to interfere with the findings given by the learned District Consumer Commission, Wardha.

7.         Accordingly, we hereby hold that the appeal preferred by the appellant  is devoid of  any substance and so we pass the following  order.

ORDER

i.          Appeal is hereby dismissed.

ii.          Both parties shall bear their own cost.  

iii.         Copy of order be furnished to both the parties, free of cost.