DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

Case No.520/2012

Sh. Jaswant Rai Aggarwal

S/o Late Sh. Moti Lal

R/o 421 Pkt-E Mayur Vihar,

Phase-II, Delhi-110091                                                     ….Complainant

Versus

1.       HDFC Ltd.

Through Mr. Navneet Prasad

The Capital Court, Munirka,

Outer Ring Road, Olof Palme Marg,

New Delhi-110067

2.       HDFC Bank

          Through

          Ms. Gauri Singh

          D-23, Defence Colony

          New Delhi-110024                                             ….Opposite Parties

                                                  Date of Institution        : 05.10.12        Date of Order     : 04.10.18   

Coram:

Sh. R.S. Bagri, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

ORDER

Member - Kiran Kaushal

Brief facts of the case in nutshell are:-

1. The complainant, Shri Jaswant Rai Aggarwal, sought transfer for an existing loan from ICICI Bank to HDFC Ltd. The complainant was a preferred customer of HDFC Bank since last ten years (OP-2). Therefore, the complainant decided to transfer his home loan from ICICI to HDFC Ltd. As stated the complainant was getting the loan transferred because the processing fee in ICICI Bank was about Rs.25000/- whereas HDFC Ltd. was charging only Rs.11,236/-. The complainant paid the processing fees Rs.11236/- vide cheque No. 0566863 in favour of HDFC ltd.
   1. OP No.1’s official called the complainant on 31.05.2012 and informed that loan of only Rs.50,00,000/- could be sanctioned instead of Rs.52,00,000/-. The complainant agreed for the same and his acceptance was communicated through email dated 05.07.2012. The complainant further told the bank that it is important that the loan be sanctioned before 10^th June as the installments in ICICI Bank get due on 10^th day of every month which in turn was promised to the complainant that he will not have to pay another EMI in ICICI bank.
   2. One month later the representative of the bank communicated to the complainant that the bank could provide with a home loan of not more than Rs.45,00,000/-. It is further averred by the complainant that the bank could consider his case of home loan if he adds his son’s name in the loan although he had already given his son’s financials also on the very first day when the banks staff went to his office, but the same had to be given again.
   3. The complainant alleging the misconduct of OP-1 states he had to mail various officials in the bank and only after his correspondence his loan was reprocessed. The complainant  got a sanction letter of Rs.52,00,000/- but the same was sanctioned for 15 years instead of 20 years.
   4. The complainant alleges that the official of OP-1 Mr. Rai, told him to come to the bank for signing the agreement of the loan and he must bring along a cheque for Rs.45,00/- to pay handling charges to the lawyer. The complainant objected to the same and told that he had nothing to do with the lawyer as he had already paid the processing fee and the lawyer is either agent of the HDFC Bank or HDFC Ltd. and should be paid out of the processing fees itself.
   5. It is further averred that when the complainant refused to pay the lawyer fee, he was told that he will have to pay Rs.2,500/- and the rest would be managed. It is alleged that this was nothing but cheating on account of the both HDFC Bank and HDFC Ltd. as no such payment was disclosed to him. Complainant further states that he was left with no choice but to agree to pay Rs.2,500/- as he was paying interest of Rs.2000/- per day in ICICI Bank.
   6. The complainant was called on 12.07.2012 at 10 AM by Mr. Rai, official of OP-1 stating that the agreement will be signed in the Munirka Branch of HDFC Ltd. The complainant also states that he had asked the official to prepare all the pages in advance as the complainant would not be able to spare time in the morning as he had a meeting at 11.00 AM sharp. The complainant was informed that it is matter of not more than 10 minutes and he will be free by 10.30 AM in any circumstances. On reaching the bank at 10 A.M. sharp the complainant was surprised as Mr. Rai had not arrived there nor had he prepared anything in advance and he had to wait till 10.30 AM for Mr. Rai to arrive.
   7. The complainant was further aggrieved when he was told that loan cheque will be handed over to the lawyer inspite of signing the receiving of the loan cheque and the agreement. The complainant was told that the cheque will be handed over to the lawyer only for the security reason and he shall have to contact the lawyer to get the cheque. Complainant had to wait for the lawyer but the lawyer had not reached till 11.15 AM. It was then the complainant took a call and decided that he does not want loan from the HDFC Bank. The complainant asked the officials of OP No.1 to either cancel the loan or the loan cheque should be handed over to him. In turn the complainant was again humiliated by the official of OP-1 and the loan had to be cancelled, due to non performance, misrepresentation and misconduct of the employee of HDFC Bank and HDFC Ltd.
   8. It is further stated the complainant had tried to save just Rs.13,000/- where as he had already paid an excess interest to ICICI bank of Rs.12,000/- due to the negligence of HDFC Staff.
   9. Aggrieved by the circumstances stated above, complainant prays for direction to the respondents to refund processing fees which is Rs.11,236/-, to pay interest @18% p.a. on the aforesaid amount. It is also prayed for direction to respondent to pay sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards  compensation for mental torture and agony suffered and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards the  cost of litigation.
2. OP No.1 and OP No.2 resisted the complaint by filing their respective written statements.
   1. In the written statement filed on behalf of the OP No.1 it is stated that the complaint is wholly false, misconceived and fallacious. It is liable to be dismissed in limine. OP No.1 has preliminary objected that the complaint does not disclose any deficiency qua OP No.1, within the meaning of section 2 (1) (g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is further alleged that it was the complainant who approached the OP No.2 with a request for transfer his existing Home Loan Account with the ICCI Bank. It was on the complainant’s request that OP No.2 referred the complainant’s request for transfer to OP No.1. 
   2. It was on receipt of the said request the loan application of the complainant was processed on priority basis by OP No.1.  OP No.1 states that it is pertinent to mention that the complainant was duly informed about all the charges etc. which he would be required to incur well in advance and out of which the complainant only paid the processing fee of Rs.11236/- and the counsel fee is still needed to be paid by the complainant. OP No.1 further averred that all the calls and enquires made to OP No.1 were answered promptly and completely to the satisfaction of the complainant.  It is further submitted that the relevant documents were processed and completed by the OP No.1 in a most diligent manner. OP No.1 reiterates the fact that the complainant was getting his loan transferred from ICICI Bank as the processing fee was charged by OP No.1 was Rs.11,236/- as being a professional.  OP No.1 further submits that it has provided efficient services to the complainant in a very short time span, like it does for every of its customers and as per procedure the loan was sanctioned. OP No.1 further submits that the son of the complainant Sh. Vikrant Nilesh Goel was already co-borrower/co-applicant with the complainant.
   3. It is further submitted that the complainant himself had applied for a loan for a period of 13 years and the bank granted the loan for 15 years as the maximum tenure for self employed loans is generally 15 years. Misrepresentation made by the complainant  is very clear from the fact that the complainant  in his loan application form dated 28.05.12 requested for a loan of Rs.52 lac for a period of 13 years and now the period of loan is being disputed by the complainant
   4. OP No.1 submits that the complainant was informed well in advance that the lawyer fee was separate and distinct from the processing fee and has to be paid by the customer. It is submitted that in cases of refinance as in the present case where the property is freehold, stipulated lawyer charges are Rs.4000/ and not Rs.4500/- as wrongly alleged by the complainant. This charge is for the title search and document collection from the concerned bank. It is submitted that it is the practice followed by the OP No.1 that in every case of refinancing of an existing housing loan, the cheque for any loan transaction is handed over to a lawyer only for completion of necessary formalities and safeguarding the interest of the customers. The lawyer is neither an employee of OP No.1 nor an agent as wrongly alleged by the complainant. OP No.1 further states that the disbursement of cheque drawn on HDFC Bank favouring ICICI Bank Ltd. was ready for handing over the same to the complainant.
   5. OP No.1 vehemently denies the allegation that “complainant shall not be liable to pay more than the processing fee, however the complainant was told that he will have to pay Rs.2500/- or that the rest would be managed.” The OP No.1 states that this is gross distortion of true facts as OP No.1 has confirmed from the lawyer, Ms. Anil Chug that she has not received the counsel fee till date. 
   6. OP No.1 further submitted that on 12.07.12 all the formalities were complete by 10.45 a.m. and the lawyer who had to accompany the complainant was stuck due to heavy rain. The official of OP No.1 requested the complainant to wait for another 10 minutes. However, the complainant without any rhyme and reason started using harsh language and misbehaved with the staff of the OP No.1 and further cancelled the loan documents. It is submitted by OP No.1 that the OP No.1 has throughout acted as per law but it was the complainant who misbehaved and acted arbitrarily.
   7. OP No.1 further stated that the complainant sent a notice to them and the same was duly replied to. In the said reply it was clearly stated that since the OP No.1 has spent considerable labour and time to process the documents for loan and sanctioned the loan, the process fee is not refundable by the OP No.1 and the same is also against the policies as established. Hence, OP No.1 prays for the dismissal of the complaint with an exemplary cost.
   8. As regards the OP No.2 it is submitted that the dispute has arisen out  of the housing loan to be sanctioned and disbursed by HDFC ltd. wherein the OP No.2 i.e. HDFC bank Ltd. has no role to play. The issuance and/or rejection of the housing loan is under the sole discretion of HDFC Ltd. i.e. OP No.1. The entire documentation was also done at the end of HDFC Ltd. and correspondence /communication with regard to housing loan is also from their end.

3.       Rejoinder and evidence by way of affidavit filed by the complainant reiterates the facts stated by him in the complaint. The complainant supports his case by annexing an email dated 15.06.12 wherein he accepts a loan of Rs.50 lakhs instead of Rs.52 lakhs as Annexure-1. A sanction letter of Rs.52,00,000/- which was sanctioned for 15 years instead of 20 years annexed as Annexure-2 and the loan cheque of Rs.52 lakhs annexed as Annexure-3.

4.       Sh. Aju Ashok, Deputy Manager filed an evidence by way of affidavit on behalf of the OP No.1. The individual loan application form is exhibited as Ex. RW-1/A and the reply to the notice by the complainant is exhibited as Ex. RW-1/B to support the case of OP No.1.

5.       Sh. Alok Sharma, Authorized officer OP No.2 filed an evidence by way of affidavit on behalf of the OP No.2.

6.       Written arguments on behalf of parties have been filed.

7.       Arguments of the counsel of the parties are heard and record is perused carefully.

8.       As observed the complainant got his home loan transferred from ICICI Bank to HDFC Ltd. As the processing fee charged by ICICI Bank was about Rs.25,000/- whereas HDFC Ltd. was charging only Rs.11,236/-. The complainant paid the processing fee of Rs.11236/- for the loan amount of Rs.52 lakhs.

9.       Dispute between the parties arose when the complainant was told to come and sign the agreement of loan. He was asked to get a cheque of Rs.4500/- to be paid towards handling charges payable to a lawyer. The complainant objected to the same and said that he had already paid processing charges. He further told that he has nothing to do with the lawyer as the lawyer is the agent of HDFC Bank or HDFC Ltd. and shall be paid out of the processing fee itself. He was then told that he will have to pay Rs.2500/- and the rest would be managed.  As stated by the complainant “the complainant had no choice but to agree to pay Rs.2500/- as he was paying interest of Rs.2000/- per day in ICICI Bank.”  OP No.1 has very specifically denied this fact and submitted that the lawyer Ms. Anil Chug has confirmed to OP-1 that she has not received the counsel fee, till date.

10.     The complainant averred that one of the officials of the OP-1 Mr. Rai told him that the bank could provide him with a home loan of not more than Rs.45 lakhs and the bank can consider his case of home loan if he adds his son’s name in the loan although he had already given his son’s financial also, on the very first day when the bank staff went to his office but the same had to be given again. 

11.     This averments made by the complainant is false and misrepresented as his son Sh. Vikrant Nilesh Goel was already a co-borrower/co-applicant with the complainant from the very beginning and the complainant  was well aware of this fact as exhibited in Ex.RW-1A.

12.     The complainant stated that he wrote various mails to the bank officials. It was only after his mails that his loan was processed and he received a sanction letter of Rs.52 lakhs, but the same was sanctioned for 15 years instead of 20 years. Misrepresentation made by the complainant is very clear from the fact that the complainant in his loan application form dated 28.05.12 (placed on record as Ex.RW1A) requested for a loan of Rs.52 lac for a period of 13 years.

13.     Regarding the payment of the lawyer fee, OP No.1 submits that the complainant was informed well in advance that the lawyer fee was separate and distinct from the processing fee and has to be paid by the customer. It is further submitted that in cases of refinance as in the present case where the property is freehold, stipulated lawyer charges are Rs.4000/-. This charge is for the title search and document collection from the concerned bank. It is the practice followed by the OP No.1 that in every case of refinancing of an existing housing loan, the cheque for any loan transaction is handed over to a lawyer only for completion of necessary formalities and safeguarding the interest of the customers. Thus, it is quite evident that this was a common practice followed by OP-1 this lawyer fee was not specially charged from the complainant. Additionally, the OP No.1 has very categorically mentioned the purpose of charging the lawyer fee.

14.     As regard the OP No.2 the dispute has arisen out of the housing loan to be sanctioned and disbursed by HDFC Ltd. wherein the OP No.2 i.e. HDFC bank Ltd. has no role to play. The issuance and/or rejection of the housing loan is under the sole discretion of HDFC Ltd. i.e. OP No.1. The entire documentation was also done at the end of HDFC Ltd. and correspondence /communication with regard to housing loan is also from their end. This forum is of the view that it is the HDFC Ltd. who was the sole necessary and proper party to the complaint. There was no cause of action qua OP No.2.

15.     For the reasons stated above the forum finds that there is no deficiency in service by the OPs. After having started the process of loan disbursement the complainant misusing his profession as an advocate tried to wriggle out of the agreement on flimsy ground. It is this type of litigation that clogs the judicial system.

16.     Hence, the complaint is dismissed with cost of Rs.5000/- being based on false, frivolous and concocted facts to be paid by the complainant to the OP No.1.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on 04.10.18.