Punjab

Patiala

CC/19/204

Vijay Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Grihshakti Fullertorn India - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Harinderpal Singh Sodhi

20 Feb 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

 

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/ 204/2019
Date of Institution	:	12.6.2019
Date of Decision	:	20.2.2023

 

                                     

 

Vijay Kumar aged about 35 years son of Sh.Sat Pal, resident of B-15/186, Mohalla Suigaran, Patiala.

 

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

 

1. Grihashakti Fullerton India Home Finance Co. Ltd., Chhoti Baradar, Patiala through its Manager.
2. Branch Manager, Grihashakti Fullerton India Home Finance Co. Ltd., Chhoti Baradar, Patiala.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

 

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

 

QUORUM

                                      Hon’ble Mr.S.K.Aggarwal, President

                                      Hon’ble Mr.G.S.Nagi, Member        

 

 

PRESENT:                   Sh.Baljinder Singh, counsel for complainant.

                             Sh.Vikas Mittal, counsel for OPs.             

 

                                     

 ORDER                                          

1. The instant complaint is filed by Vijay Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Grihashakti Fullerton India Home Finance Co. Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act (for short the Act).
2. The averments of the complainant are as follows:

That complainant applied for loan of Rs.10lakh with the OPs for purchasing a built up house. It was assured that the loan will be disbursed within a period of one month. Certain documents alongwith four blank signed cheques were obtained from the complainant. Complainant completed all formalities required for sanctioning of loan but inspite of that loan was neither sanctioned nor disbursed to him. Complainant made several requests in this regard to the OPs but the matter was put off on one pretext or the other and the earnest money so made by the complainant has been forfeited. Officials of the OPs wrongly and illegally deducted amount of Rs.11,165/- from the account of firm of complainant namely Health Care Technology, Sanauri Gate, Patiala.Rs.2500/-was charged as legal charges. Apart from this, complainant spent Rs.5000/- approximately for getting legal opinion, stamp papers etc.

Due to non-sanctioning of loan well within time complainant suffered huge financial loss. Officials of OPs had no right to deduct the amount of Rs.11,165/- from the current account of above said firm. Complainant requested OPs to return all the documents including four blank signed cheques but to no effect. Complainant sent legal notice to OPs on 1.5.2019 through registered post but of no avail. There is thus deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant. Consequently, prayer has been made for acceptance of the complaint.

3. Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed written statement having taken various preliminary objections.
4. On merits, it is admitted to the extent that complainant has applied for loan. It is also admitted that complainant completed all the formalities regarding applying and sanctioning of loan. It is submitted that complainant has firstly given the loan application in which he is the main applicant and his wife Deepika was the first co-applicant and their firm Health Care Technology was the second co-applicant. Thereafter, loan agreement was entered into between the parties. However, the loan was not disbursed on the request of complainant, whereas OPs had done all required formalities for sanctioning of loan.
5.           Amount of Rs.11,165/-, so mentioned by complainant has already been refunded to him on 24.8.2019, even prior to any proceedings initiated by him. With regard to other amount mentioned by the complainant, OPs have charged the processing fee which is duly reflected in the statement of account. There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. After denying all other averments, OPs prayed for dismissal of complaint.
6. Ld. counsel for complainant, in support of the averments, tendered Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant, Ex.C1 copy of agreement, Ex.C2 copy of legal notice, Ex.C3 postal receipts and closed the evidence.
7. Ld. counsel for OPs has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Puneet Gogia, Ex.OP1 copy of loan application, Ex.OP2 copy of loan agreement, Ex.OP3 copy of statement of account and closed the evidence.
8. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
9. The complainant has averred that he had applied for availing loan of Rs.10lakh with OPs for purchasing a built up house and entered into an agreement with Shama Kant Pandey,Ex.C1 for purchase of house. Complainant has averred that he submitted all the documents demanded by the OPs for sanction of loan alongwith Rs.11,165/- which was deducted by the OPs from his account. He also paid Rs.2500/-as legal charges and spent another amount of Rs.5000/- for getting legal opinion, stamp papers etc. Inspite of having completed all formalities loan was not disbursed to the complainant within a period of one month as promised by the OPs. It is further averred that various documents including four signed cheques were taken by the OPs at the time of application of loan but loan was neither sanctioned nor disbursed to him. Legal notice was also served upon the OPs for refund of Rs.11,165/- deducted from his account, Rs.7500/- as miscellaneous charges and Rs.one lakh as damages alongwith return of the documents but no fruitful purpose was served.
10. OPs in their written statement have admitted that complainant had completed all the formalities regarding sanction of loan but have denied that promise was made to disburse the loan within one month.
11. Admittedly, complainant has applied for loan vide loan application, Ex.OP1 and loan agreement entered into between the complainant and OPs is, Ex.OP2. As per the said agreement, application for loan was made on 23.1.2019.Agreement was signed on 15.2.2019, which clearly indicates that loan was sanctioned within period of one month although no such promise was made by the OPs. As such, argument of ld. counsel for complainant that loan was not sanctioned within a period of one month from the date of application is not tenable. Sanctioning of loan agreement also leads to the conclusion that loan was duly sanctioned. However, complainant failed to avail the said loan. An amount of Rs.2500/- has been charged as legal charges for taking legal opinion and other formalities for sanctioning of loan, which is normal process and the expenditure incurred has to be borne by the complainant/consumer.
12. Further the amount of Rs.11,165/- alleged to have been deducted from the account of the complainant on 27.4.2019 had already been credited to his account on 24.8.2019, as per account statement,Ex.OP3.As such, we find no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs . From the discussion above, it transpires that complainant himself had not availed the loan. As such, we deem it fit to dismiss the complaint accordingly. Parties are left to bear their own costs.           
13.           The instant complaint could not be disposed of within stipulated period due to Covid protocol and for want of Quorum from long time.
85109252238716.  
85109252238717.  

 

                                              G.S.Nagi                           S.K.AGGARWAL

                                              Member                          President