BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Complaint  Case  No : 671 of 2010

Date of Institution :  01.11.2010

Date of  Decision   :  16.05.2011

Mukesh Jalwal s/o Sh. Bharat Singh, resident of Flat No.12, 2^nd Floor, Penta VIP Towers, VIP Road, Zirakpur.

 ….…Complainant

V E R S U S

[1]  HDFC Bank Ltd., SCO No.78-79, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh-160017.

[2]  HDFC Bank Ltd., Ramon House, 169, Backbay Reclamation, HT Parekh Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400020.

[3]  HDFC Bank Ltd., SCF 55, 1^st Floor, Phase 3-B2, Mohali-160055.

.…..Opposite Parties

CORAM:   Sh.P.D. GOEL                    PRESIDENT

SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL          MEMBER

            DR.(MRS).MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA       MEMBER

Argued by: Complainant in person.

Ms. Promila Nain, Counsel for OPs.

PER RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER

           The facts of the case are that for purchasing a Flat in Zirakpur, the Complainant applied for a housing loan of `21,00,000/- to OP Bank on 23.06.2009, by complying with all the required formalities. On 27.06.2009, after charging the processing fee of `11,036/-, OP sanctioned home loan of `21,00,000/- in favour of the Complainant. However, the said loan amount was not disbursed by the OP and rather, the Complainant was asked to bring the original property documents. Since the seller too had a loan of approx. `10,00,000/- from Axis Bank, the original papers were with the said Bank and not with the Seller. The Complainant apprised the position to the OP, whereupon, he was asked to clear the said loan of `10,00,000/- from his own pocket and to bring the original documents to have the loan amount disbursed. He tried to persuade the OP in many ways, but the OP was not ready to listen any suggestions. Having left with no other option, the Complainant requested the OP to refund processing fee, so that he could apply for loan in another Bank. But to his utter dismay, he was only refunded `5,515/- by the OP vide Annexure C-6 and forfeited the rest of money. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainant has filed the present complaint.

2]         Notice of the complaint was sent to OPs, seeking their version of the case.

3]         OPs in their joint reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, pleaded that the Complainant never disclosed the fact that the intended property was already mortgaged with some other Bank. It was further pleaded that the offer letter was issued in good faith as OPs were not aware before issuing the offer letter of loan that property in question was mortgaged with some other Bank. It was only when the Complainant was asked to submit the original property documents before disbursement, he disclosed that the property was already mortgaged by the owner of the flat to Axis Bank. Since as per policy of the Bank, it was not possible to give loan to the Complainant on the property, which was already mortgaged to some other bank, the OP refunded 50% of the processing fee, which otherwise was non-refundable, after adjusting 50% amount for expenses incurred on processing of the loan. All other material contentions of the complaint were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

4]         Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5]         We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

6]        The sole grouse of the Complainant was that despite sanctioning the loan amount of `21,00,000/-, the OP refused to disburse the same to him. On the other hand, the OPs contended that the Complainant concealed the material information that the said property had already been mortgaged with the Axis Bank. The Complainant was asked to submit the original papers with the Bank, which he could not do and rather, asked that cheque/draft be prepared in the name of Axis Bank. In this backdrop, the loan amount was not disbursed to the Complainant and 50% of the processing fee was refunded to him, even though the same was non-refundable as OPs had already spent this money by paying it to different agencies for processing the application of the Complainant as well as to verify his credentials. Furthermore, the OPs have placed on record a letter, himself signed by the Complainant (Annexure R-2), interalia, stating that he has no dues against the OPs i.e. HDFC Ltd. This being so, the Complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct. So far as the disbursement of loan is concerned, we feel that the same is within the discretion of the Bank and this Forum cannot not interfere in disbursement of loan, as it is the sole prerogative of the financial institution whether to lend the loan or not.     

7]         In view of the above discussion, in our considered onion, there is no merit, weight or substance in the present complaint and, therefore, the same cannot be accepted in favour of the Complainant and against the OPs. There is neither any deficiency of service, nor indulgence in any unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. As such, we dismiss the complaint. However, the respective parties shall bear their own costs.

8]         Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.