DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR
Complaint No.194 of 2019 Date of Instt. 03.06.2019 Date of Decision: 01.06.2021
1. Anokh Singh son of Kirpal Singh,
2. Baljit Kaur wife of Anokh Singh,
Both Resident of Village Ishwarwal, Tehsil and District Jalandhar.
….. Complainants
Versus
1. Diwan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd., Warden House, 2nd Floor, Sir PM Road, Fort, Mumbai through its Managing Director.
2. Diwan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd., SCO 11-12, First Floor, Crystal Plaza, Chotti Baradari, Part-1, Jalandhar through its Manager.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act
QUORUM:
Sh. KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT
Smt. JYOTSNA, MEMBER
ARGUED BY:
For Complainant : Sh. Vivek Jain, Advocate
For OPs : Sh. Vikas Sood, Advocate
ORDER:-
KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT
The present complaint has been filed by complainants against the OPs on the averments that they approached OPs for one housing loan to construct house over the land purchased by them through registered sale deed dated 12.01.2017 measuring 6 Marlas situated at Village Khera Tehsil Phagwara District Kapurthala. OPs received original sale deed from the complainants along with their I.D Proofs and agreed to sanction a housing loan to them. As per estimated value of the construction, complainants need about Rs.13,00,000/- to complete the construction and OPs agreed to grant the loan of Rs.7,86,620/- to them. On the assurance, complainant engaged one the kedar to start construction over the property and on 08.06.2018 OPs sanctioned the loan to them amounting to Rs.7,86,620/- with loan from OP no.2. At the time of sanctioning the loan, OPs took number of signatures on various papers out of which some are blank. After sanctioning the loan of Rs.7,86,620/-, Rs.1,75,000/- has credited into the bank of complainants on 28.06.2018. The complainants started raising construction over their property but OPs without assigning any reason stop payment of further sanctioned loan. The OPs always told the complainants that due to some internal technically problem it will take some time for disbursement of further sanctioned loan amount. Due to shortage of funds, the complainants are unable to complete their construction. In the month of April 2019 OPs told to them that now they are not to disburse the remaining loan amount to them and asked to them to return Rs.2,61,620/- on the pretext that the total disbursement amount is Rs.2,61,620/-. The complainants requested OPs that amount of Rs.1,75,000/- which was disbursed to them that an amount of Rs.41,676/- was also charged from them. Due to act and conduct of OPs, the complainants suffered huge financial loss. Due to illegal act and conduct of OPs, the complainants suffered loss. The OPs are legally bound to disburse sanctioned loan amount to complainants as only Rs.1,75,000/- has been disbursed and legally bound to pay damages and compensation to them. The complainants also issued legal notice dated 25.04.2019 to OPs, but of no use. The complainants shocked to see that a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- has been disbursed and Rs.86,620/- has been paid towards the insurance policy whereas no insurance policy has been taken by them. Therefore, they had filed the present complaint and prayed that the OPs be directed not to charge the unexplained amount of Rs.86,620/- and Rs.41,676/- and disburse the remaining sanctioned loan amount and to pay the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and illegal act of OPs and Rs.7500/- as cost of litigation.
Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainants by raising preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable. On merits, it was averred that the documents were sought from them which were required to conduct a legal and technical verification and appraisal. On the basis of instructions, an amount of Rs.7,86,260/- was sanctioned on 08.6.2018. The loan amount shall be disbursed in accordance with stages of construction. The complainants agreed for the same and also agreed for all the terms and conditions mentioned in sanctioned letter as well as loan agreement. On the basis of request of complainants, a sum of Rs.1.5 lac was disbursed in their favour and Rs.86,620/- was given to insurance policy on 28.08.2018 against their premium. The complainants requested OPs for disbursement of the second installment of the loan. On the same, a technical expert observed that 65% of the property stood constructed. On achieving such stage, the complainants cannot receive the disbursement of Rs.2,80,000/-. Rest of the averments made by the complainants were denied by OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The complainants tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant no.1 as Ex.C-A along with copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-52 on the record. On the other hand, OPs relied upon affidavit of Sanjay Kaundal Attorney of OPs as Ex.OP-A along with copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-7.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case very minutely.
5. The glance of evidence is required for settlement of the present case. The complainant no.1 has tendered his affidavit Ex.C-A in support of his case. Ex.C-1 is copy of aadhar card of the complainant no.1 and Ex.C-2 is copy of aadhar card of complainant no.2. Ex.C-5 is copy of agreement executed between the seller and purchaser regarding land. Ex.C-6 is copy of account statement. In which it has been mentioned that amount of Rs.2,61,620.00 has been disbursed to complainants. Ex.C-10 is copy of legal notice served upon OPs. ExC-11 and Ex.C-12 are copies of postal receipts thereof. Ex.C-14 to Ex.C-21 are photographs on the record. Ex.C-22 to Ex.C-52 are copies of receipts of regarding purchase of materials of different dates and different amounts mentioned therein.
6. To counter this evidence of the complainants, OPs relied upon affidavit of Sanjay Kaundal attorney of Dewan Housing Finance Ltd as Ex.OP-A on the record. Ex.OP-1 is copy of courier receipt. Ex.OP-3 to Ex.OP-4 are photographs. Ex.OP-5 is copy of application form. Ex.OP-6 is copy of disbursement memo. Ex.OP-7 is copy of legal notice.
7. From perusal of record, it has transpired that as per the estimated value of the construction, complainants need about Rs.13,00,000/- to complete the construction and OPs agreed to grant loan of Rs.7,86,620/-. After sanctioned the loan of Rs.7,86,620/- OPs disburse the amount of Rs.1,75,000/- to them which has been credited into bank of complainants on 28.08.2018. OPs giving without any notice to complainants, told them they are not to disburse the remaining loan amount to them and asked the complainants to return Rs.2,61,620/- on the pretext that the total disbursement amount is Rs.2,61,620/- The OPs also charged Rs.41,676/- from complainants without any reason. OPs also disbursed amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.86,620/- towards insurance policy whereas the complainants not received any insurance policy. Ex.C-6 is copy of statement of account , in which the amount sanctioned is mentioned as Rs.7,86,620/- and disbursed amount is mentioned as Rs.2,61,620/- .From perusal of document Ex.C-8 it is clear that amount of Rs.1,75,000/- credited to account of complainants, this amount credited by Dewan Housing Finance OPs on 28.08.2018 to complainants. From perusal of photographs Ex.C-14 to Ex.C-21 it is clear that the construction work of the house of the complainants under process but not completed. If OPs agreed for sanctioned amount to complainants, then it is bounden duty of the OPs to disburse the sanctioned amount as per rules. From perusal of Ex.C-22 to Ex.C-52 receipts of different dates, clear that the complainants purchased the material for construction of his house on different dates and they paid for the same. OPs wrongly charged Rs.86,620/- from complainants on the account of insurance policy, but the complainants not purchased the same at any time from OPs and Ops also wrongly charged Rs.41,676/- from OPs.
8. The learned counsel for complainants relied upon various judgments in support of their case i.e. case titled as M/s Construction and Design Services vs. Delhi Development Authority reported in 2015(1) SCC 263 that time is essence of contract. Work not completed within the specified period. Even if technically the time was not of essence, it could not be presumed that delay was of no consequent. Compensation granted to complainant on account of delay. Further case titled as Kamal Nagpal versus State Bank of India and another reported in 1995(2) CPJ 342 by Jammu & Kashmir State Consumer Commission Jammu that complainant was sanctioned a loan of Rs.85,000/- by the authorities. Bank paid Rs.50,000/- only of the total loan. It is clearly a deficient in service on the part of the bank for not payment the total sanctioned amount to the complainant. Further case titled as ICICI Bank and others vs. Dattatray Sadashiv Gurav reported in 2009(2) CPC 677 by Maharashtra State Consumer Commission Mumbai that bank loan – deficiency in service, a sum of Rs.33,400/- obtained by complainant from OP bank. Loan was agreed to repaid with EMI of Rs.1632/- but bank suo-moto changed EMI to Rs.2002 without any notice to the complainant. Complainant being unduly harassed by bank employees directed to repay total loan in lump sum. But bank did not accept the offer. District Forum found guilty of deficiency in service and directing it pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- with cost.
9. Coming to the merits of the case, pleadings and averments made therein about alleged harassment from the OPs. From the record, it has transpired that OPs sanctioned the loan amount of Rs.7,86,620/- and disbursed amount of Rs.2,61,620/- vide statement of account Ex.C-6 on the record. In document Ex.C-7 the sanctioned loan amount of Rs.7,86,620/- is mentioned. In document Ex.C-8 the amount of Rs.1,75,000/- credited in the account of the complainants on 28.08.2018. If OPs agreed to sanction the loan amount to complainants as it is duty of OPs to repay the same. The OPs only sanctioned Rs.1,75,000/- to OPs and they are liable to pay the remaining amount to complainants.
10. In the light of our above detailed discussion, we accept the complaint of the complainant and OPs are directed not to charge the unexplained amount of Rs.86,620/- and Rs.41,676/- and further the OPs are directed to disburse the remaining sanctioned loan amount to the complainants within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The complainants further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as cost of litigation.
11. The compliance of the order be made within 45 days from receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe, due to heavy pendency of the court cases and spread of Covid-19.
12. Let copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room after its due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:
1st Day of June 2021
(Kuljit Singh)
President
(Jyotsna)
Member
