DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Anju Khurana, Proprietor, M/s Guru Nanak Fruit Agency, SCO No.5, Sector 26, Grain Market, Chandigarh (r/o H.No.3229, Sector 28-D, Chandigarh).

…..Complainant

                 V E R S U S

HDFC Bank, Industrial Area, Phase I, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

                      ……Opposite Party

CORAM:   SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL      

PRESIDING MEMBER

DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA

                          MEMBER

Argued by:   Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for the complainant.

               Sh.Sandeep Suri, Counsel for the OPs

PER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER

         Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant planned to buy AUDI Q5 car as a gift for her husband on Marriage Anniversary on 24th January for Rs.40 lacs, for which, she approached the OP, for taking the loan of Rs.10 lacs. The complainant submitted all the relevant documents to the OP along with 3 post-dated cheques of Rs.63,240/- each as EMI security. The OP having satisfied with the relevant documents, issued approval letter dated 23.1.2012; but when she reached the dealer for taking the delivery of the car on 24.1.2012, she was surprised that the dealer did not receive the payment from the OP. Due to the fault of the OP, the delivery could not be taken on the same date. After numerous calls to the OP, the complainant was finally told to hand over 3 postdated cheques as margin money after signing the loan cancellation letter. Finally, the complainant had to avail loan from some other financial institution and took the delivery on 25.1.2012. The complainant brought this matter to the notice of higher authorities of OP through e-mail – Annexure C-6 but to no avail. Hence, this complaint.

2]       OP filed the reply, wherein, it has been pleaded that after receipt of the documents from the complainant, the OP took 3-4 days time for complete verification of documents and completion of other formalities prior to issuance of pay order in favour of the dealer. The confirmation/verification of the documentation was still in process but the complainant immediately i.e. on 24.1.2012 approached the dealer for taking delivery of the car without waiting to receive the disbursal amount from the OP. The complainant was requested to wait for the same but she chose not to do so and the letter Annexure C-2 specifically provides that the same is not a delivery order. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service on its part and prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs has been made.  

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]       We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 

5]       The sole grouse of the complainant is that despite submitting all the relevant documents as well as assurance of the OP Bank to grant the required loan, by the due date of her marriage anniversary i.e. 24.1.2012 (Ann.C-1), the same was not done.  It is pleaded that despite issuance of Approval letter, dated 23.1.2012 (Ann.C-2), Loan Agreement Schedule, dated 23.1.2012 (Ann.C-3), Issuance of Insurance Cover Note dated 23.1.2012 (Ann.C-4) and Change of EMI Format (Ann.C-5), the OP Bank by not making/disbursing the payment to the Dealer i.e. M/s Jay Cee Automobiles, Chandigarh, had frustrated/defeated the sole purpose of the complainant, as a result, the complainant could not take the delivery of the Car, which   messed-up the whole celebration mood of her family, though the OP Bank later on, vide  Ann.C-7, expressed the apology.  Ultimately, the complainant availed the loan from some other institution and delivery was taken on 25.2.2012. 

6]       On the contrary, the OP had denied of having given any assurance to the complainant for the disbursement of the loan, as alleged.  It was further pleaded that merely handing over the relevant documents, did not entitle any person to get the loan.  Furthermore, the issuance of approval letter, in principle, was subject to certain conditions/formalities for confirmation/verification of the documents.  The same were under process, in order to disburse the loan amount, subsequently to the concerned dealer, which normally take 3-4 working days. 

7]      Having carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, documents placed on record as well as facts and circumstance of the case, it is an admitted fact that the complainant with an intend to buy a car, applied for a loan from OP Bank, which was approved on 23.1.2012, but did not disburse it by 24.1.2012 as required.

8]       The claim of the complainant is that the said loan was availed of by her, from OP Bank for a specific occasion/purpose on a specific date i.e. to gift the car to her husband on 24^th Jan., 2012 being their anniversary date. But the same was defeated/frustrated because of the deficient & negligent act of the OP Bank. The OP Bank even after approval of the loan (Ann.C-2); executing loan agreement and issuing the Schedule (Ann.C-3); getting the vehicle insured with hypothecation in favour of OP Bank, failed to disburse the loan amount to the concerned dealer, as a result, she had to avail the loan from other financial institute and took the delivery of the car on 25.1.2012, subsequently to the occasion.      

9]       The ld.Counsel for the OP has taken a plea that the loan documents of the complainant were under process and the loan was to be disbursed only after its complete verification etc. This plea of the OP is totally vague and untenable.  It is not the case of the OP that the loan was approved summarily just on the receipt of loan application of the complainant.  The loan must has been approved by the OP Bank after due verification of the loan documents submitted by the complainant.  Even the loan agreement had been executed between the parties and EMI format was also issued to the complainant. Not only this, the insurance cover of the vehicle with hypothecation in favour of the OP Bank was also done.  This all was done by 23.1.2012.  However, inspite of that, the amount was not disbursed to the concerned dealer.  Resultantly, the complainant could not get the delivery of the car by the due date i.e. 24.1.2012.  Therefore, the sole purpose of the complainant, for which she had done the whole exercise, fulfill the requirement of the OP Bank, was badly/poorly defeated/frustrated. 

10]      In our opinion, the OP Bank should have made apparently clear to the complainant, in writing along with the approval letter, mentioning therein that the disbursement of the loan amount would atleast took so many days, which they have not done so.  Moreover, it is a bald assertion of the OP that the loan could not be disbursed as the confirmation/verification of the documents was still under process.  The ld.Counsel for the OP miserably failed to place on record or specify the document(s), which were still under process for verification. Such a vague plea appears to be taken by the OP just to shield its deficient act, due to which the whole purpose of the complainant was frustrated and she had to run to other door.

11]            Henceforth, judged from any angle, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the OP was deficient in rendering proper services to the complainant. Therefore, there is lot of merit, weight and substance in the present complaint. Thus, the same is accordingly allowed. The OPs are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant, for causing her immense mental & physical harassment.  The OP is also directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.15,000/-.

         This order be complied with by the OP within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, failing which, they shall be liable to pay penal interest @12% p.a. on the above awarded amount of compensation of Rs.50,000/- from the date of filing this complaint i.e. 20.3.2012 till its actual payment, besides paying litigations costs as above.

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