PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 6.3.2014 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 609 of 2012 – HDFC Ltd., Jaipur & Ors. Vs. Ramesh Chand Soni by which, appeal was partly allowed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner applied for residential loan to the OP/Respondent Bank, which was initially accepted by the Bank and granted loan of Rs.5,70,000/- and prior to sanctioning loan, entire essential formalities were also got completed during the course of grant and disbursement of loan. On enquiring regarding the concerned plot in JDA, the bank found that title of the complainant was not clear on the concerned plot. The plot on which he wanted to raise construction, according to the JDA Plan, the plot was the land for road. Thus, on the ground of disputed title, the OP Bank declined disbursement of loan. It was the pleading of the complaint that after sanctioning the loan, declining disbursement is deficiency in service. OP Bank did not return back his original documents and the processing fee which was charged. On information of this loan to his department an entry was made in his service record to the effect that residential loan is pending against him. The bank also did not give any information to them. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that no cause of action has arisen to the complainant. Since the loan could not be disbursed to the complainant due to his own reasons and also could not be disbursed on the reason that the plot of complainant where it is situated, approval of it has not been done by JDA and due to the FI/Technical Report also being against the complainant, payment of loan could not be released. The complainant’s plot No. 101, Ganga Vihar-H according to the report of JDA was falling within the sector road and according to this report, as per the JDA Sector 29 and plan; 60 ft. wide road was also passing through the plot of complainant. The Technical Appraisal Report dated 12.11.2009 is Ex-R/5. Therefore, for this reason the loan which the complainant applied on the plot was not possible to be granted by the OP. It was further submitted that as far question of entry made in service book of complainant about loan of Rs. 5,70,000/- that can be got deleted by complainant and OP is ready to return back 6 cheques, which were received by them from complainant. Denying any deficiency on their part, prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District forum after hearing both parties, allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.3,50,000 to the complainant and Rs.5,000/- as expenses and deposit Rs.1,00,000/- in State Consumer Welfare Fund, Jaipur. It was further directed that OP will return original documents along with cheques after obtaining receipt. OP filed appeal and learned State Commission vide impugned order allowed appeal partly and reduced compensation of Rs. 4,50,000/- to Rs.25,000/- payable to the complainant against which, this revision petition has been filed. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of sanction of loan, loan was not disbursed and documents were not returned and no intimation was given to complainant’s employer about non-disbursement of loan and learned District Forum rightly allowed compensation; even then, learned State Commission committed error in reducing amount; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that, though, there was no deficiency on the part of OP and OP was not liable to pay any compensation; order passed by learned State Commission does not call for interference hence, revision petition be dismissed. 5. Perusal of record reveals that OP sanctioned loan to the complainant and asked for documents and on investigation it was found that there was no clear title of the complainant and plot of complainant was falling in Sector road. In such circumstances, OP has not committed any deficiency in not disbursing loan and learned State Commission rightly observed that there was no deficiency on the part of respondents in not disbursing loan. 6. As far cancellation of entry in service record of complainant is concerned, when loan was not disbursed, complainant should have asked his employer to delete entry in the service record regarding sanction of loan. Merely because OP has not intimated to the employer of complainant, no deficiency can be imputed on the part of OP. 7. Learned State Commission observed that there was undue delay in returning back original documents. Perusal of record reveals that intimation of sanctioning loan was given on 7.11.2008 and complainant submitted documents on 11.11.2009, meaning thereby, he himself submitted documents after one year of sanction of loan. It appears that learned District forum by order dated 28.2.2011 asked OP to return documents and in pursuance to that order, documents were returned on 20.7.2011 to complainant in the person. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that documents could not have been sent by post and complainant was asked again and again to collect documents, but he did not appear in the office to collect documents; so, delay was caused. Perusal of complaint also reveals that complainant has nowhere made allegation in the complaint that inspite of request, documents were not returned to him immediately. In such circumstances, explanation given by learned Counsel for the respondent appears to be correct and we do not find any deficiency in not returning documents immediately. 8. Learned State Commission has already affirmed compensation of Rs.25,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- and we do not find any ground for any enhancement of compensation and revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs. |
