Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/83/2016

Jasdeep Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh H S Pandher

04 Apr 2018

ORDER

  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

Consumer Complaint  No. 83 of 2016

                                                     Date of institution : 26.08.2016                                  

                                                 Date of decision    : 04.04.2018

Jasdeep Kaur wife of Tejinder Singh Kang, resident of Kothi No.B/0671 Ward No.5, Khamanon, Tehsil Khamanon, District Fatehgarh Sahib through general power of attorney Tejinder Singh Kang son of Sh. Tarlochan Singh Kang, resident of Kothi No.B/0671 Ward No.5, Khamanon, Tehsil Khamanon, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. HDFC Limited, SCO No.153/155, Sector 32, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana through Manager.
2. Jatinder Singh son of Nirmal Singh, resident of H.No.90, Ward No.4, Street No.1, Bant Colony, Lalheri Road Khanna, District Ludhiana.
3. HDFC Bank Branch Khamanon, District Fatehgarh Sahib through its Manager.
4. Kamaljit Singh Branch Manager, HDFC Bank, Branch Anaj Mandi, Khanna, District Ludhiana.
5. Zonal Office HDFC Limited SCO No.153/155, Sector 32, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana through its Zonal Officer/Incharge.

 

…..Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.               

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                                      

  Sh. Inder Jit, Member

 

Present :        Sh.H.S.Pandher, Adv.Cl. for complainant.

                      Sh. Dushyant Sarvesh, Adv.Cl. for OPs No.1 & 5.

                      Sh. B.M.Singh, Adv.Cl. for OP No.4.

                      Opposite parties No. 2 & 3 exparte.

ORDER

 

By Inder Jit, Member

                      Complainant, Jasdeep Kaur wife of Tejinder Singh Kang, resident of Kothi No.B/0671 Ward No.5, Khamanon, Tehsil Khamanon, District Fatehgarh Sahib through general power of attorney Tejinder Singh Kang son of Sh. Tarlochan Singh Kang, resident of Kothi No.B/0671 Ward No.5, Khamanon, Tehsil Khamanon, District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.           The complainant and her husband, namely; Tejinder Singh is having an account with HDFC Bank Branch Khamanon.  On 30.01.2016, Sh. Kamaljit Singh Branch Manager of the said bank met the complainant and her husband at the house of complainant in connection with deposit of Rs.40,000/- in the HDFC Bank and  insurance policy of  HDFC Life. The complainant handed over a cheque of Rs.41,452/- to said Kamaljit Singh, who  assured complainant that he will arrange any type of loan from his bank within 7 days if required by the complainant. On assurance given by said Kamaljit Singh, the complainant applied for sanction of House Loan for construction of house at their plot in Modern Valley at Sirhind bearing No.208 in Revenue Estate of Village Attewali, Fatehgarh Sahib. The complainant also handed over all the requisite documents to Sh. Jatinder Singh, OP No.2, who was deputed by OP No.3 for collecting the documents from complainant. The complainant gave a cheque of Rs.2,000/- to OP No.2 and also completed all other formalities regarding sanctioning of loan.  The OPs promised that they will deliver the first installment of sanctioned loan after completion of foundation of the plot and second installment after passing the site plan by Municipal Corporation/PUDA. In the month of May 2016, the husband of complainant received a telephonic message from OP No.1 regarding sanctioning of loan of Rs.17,00,000/-. Thereafter OP No.2, Jatinder Singh, demanded Jamabandi for 13 years and non encumbrance certificate of 13 years and also demanded Rs.3000/-. The complainant handed over the said documents and also paid cash to Jatinder Singh through one Amardeep Singh, employee in the HDFC Bank Khamanon.  Thereafter, the complainant spent Rs.95,000/- on the foundation of the plot. The complainant requested many times to OPs to disburse the loan amount but they postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. Thereafter, the complainant told her husband that his name is shown in defaulter list in SIBAL, which is regarding the Car Indigo loan. However, the husband of the complainant had not been a defaulter of even a single installment of the ICICI Bank. He had sold the said car after obtaining the clearance certificate from the said bank. The complainant so many times approached the OPs to disburse the sanctioned loan amount but all in vain. The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to disburse the loan amount in favour of the complainant and further to pay Rs.1,00,000/-, which was spent by the complainant and Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant.
3. Notice of the complaint was issued to the OPs but OPs No. 2 & 3 chose not to appear to contest this complaint. Hence, OPs No. 2 & 3 were proceeded against exparte.
4. The complaint is contested by OPs No.1,4 and 5. In reply to complaint, OPs No. 1 & 5 raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that  the complainant has raised disputed questions of facts that cannot be decided in summary proceedings and this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction as no branch is situated in District Fatehgarh Sahib.  As regards the facts of the complaint, OPs No.1 & 5 stated that the persons namely Jatinder Singh and Amardeep Singh are not the employees of HDFC Ltd. Further HDFC Ltd. never accepts any cash amount without receipt. However, the loan amount of Rs.17,00,000/- was sanctioned subject to legal and technical clearance of the property being financed and also subject to correct evaluation of the property. During technical evaluation of the property, the dimensions and such other particulars of the property were found incorrect, in as much as, there was mis-match in the dimensions and the site plan did not tally with actual location of the plot. The complainant was duly informed by the concerned Branch Manager of HDFC Ltd. Ludhiana about the said facts but she failed to provide correct particulars. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.1 and 5. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, OPs prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.
5. In reply to complaint, OP No.4 stated that HDFC Bank and HDFC Life Insurance company are different entities and are working under HDFC Group. It is further stated that the alleged insurance policy was purchased by the husband of complainant in his name from HDFC Life Insurance, Khanna through his close relative Sh. Amardeep Singh Kang, who is posted in the bank at Khamanon and the payment of the same was made through net banking. It is further stated that the complainant applied for loan through Amardeep Singh Kang in the bank at Khamanon on 05.04.2016 but on 6/7.04.2016, OP No.4 was transferred from Khamanon to Khanna and he worked at Khamanon upto 12.04.2016 till the new Manager took over the charge from him. The loan was sanctioned on 20.05.2016 i.e. more than one month after OP No.4 had left the branch and joined his job at Khanna. Therefore, OP No.4 cannot be held liable for any deficiency in service. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on his part. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, OP No.4 prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua him.
6. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence copies of documents Ex. C-1 to C-61, his affidavit Ex. C-62 and closed the evidence.  In rebuttal OP No.1 & 5 tendered in evidence affidavit of Nandan Singh Rawat Ex. OP1/A, copy of authorization letter Ex. OP-1/1, copy loan sanction letter Ex. OP1/2, copy of email Ex. OP1/3, copy of application form Ex. OP1/4 and closed the evidence. OP No.4 tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. OP4/1 and closed the evidence.
7. Ld. counsel for the complainant, on the very onset of oral arguments, argued that the complainant was assured by Sh. Kamaljit Singh, Branch Manager of the HDFC Bank Khamanon or any other bank official(as argued by the OPs) that he can arrange any type of loan from the bank within a period of 7 days. While assuring arrangement of House Loan within 7 days, he might have enquired about the status of property i.e. whether the property carries any other loan or whether the colony in which the property is situated/located, is an approved colony by the competent authority etc. Finding the status of the property as stated by the complainant, fitting very well within the framework of loan conditions, he must have assured the advancement of loan. Consequently, the complainant applied for House Loan for construction of house on her plot. All the requisite documents were handed over to the employee of the bank deputed for the purpose. The OPs promised to deliver the Ist installment of House Loan after completion of foundation at the plot and 2^nd installment after passing of site plat by the Municipal Corporation/PUDA. Ld. counsel further argued that during May/2016, husband of complainant was informed telephonically by the bank that house loan of Rs.17,00,000/- has been approved. However, Bank employee demanded certain more documents which were also handed over to the bank. Complainant spent Rs.95,000/- on the foundation at the plot. But OPs did not disburse the loan on one pretext or the other and hence this complaint. He further argued that the OPs be directed to disburse the loan amount to the complainant and also to pay Rs.1,00,000/- spent by complainant on foundation as also Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment.
8. Ld. counsel for OPs No.1 and 5 argued that house loan amounting to Rs.17,00,000/- was approved subject to legal and technical clearance of property and also correct evaluation of property. He argued that technically there was mismatch in the dimensions and the site plan did not tally with the actual location of the plot. He further argued that the plan presented by the complainant was not approved by the M.C. The Bank asked for approved plan, which has not so far been submitted. Further the bank also demanded indemnity bond which has not been submitted to the bank till now. Ld. counsel argued that the bank waited for long eight months for submission of required documents, but in vain. He argued that the bank is ready to disburse the loan if the required documents are submitted even now.
9. OP No.4 stated that the loan was sanctioned in favour of the complainant after about one month from his transfer to Khanna Branch and hence he cannot be held responsible for any deficiency, if any.
10. We have gone through the documents placed on record and written submissions and also heard the oral arguments.  It has been established that the complainant had put in the house loan papers with the bank alongwith required documents complainant deemed fit. On the basis of information provided by the complainant, the bank approved the loan in principle subject to legal and technical clearance and also evaluation of the property to be mortgaged. The complainant could not supply the approved plan of the house from the MC nor could she supply the indemnity bond required by the bank. Loan could not be disbursed owing to these legal/technical shortcomings. However, the Bank is still ready to disburse the loan as per the documents placed on record, if these shortcomings are removed by submitting required documents. Sh. Nandan Singh Rawat, Manager HDFC Ltd. SCO No.153-155, Sector 8-C Chandigarh has also submitted through his affidavit Ex. OP-1/A(on behalf of OP No.1 & 5) in para No.4 as under:

Subject to clarification as regards identification of property and such other issues, HDFC Ltd. is still willing to disburse loan amount to the complainant

11. In view of above, we direct the complainant to fulfill the legal demand of the bank as per terms and conditions etc to enable the bank to disburse the loan amount to her. The bank is directed to disburse the loan amount to the complainant within a period of two weeks from the date of completion of formalities by the complainant. The complainant had completed the foundation work at the plot spending Rs.95,000/- from her own pocket to receive the first installment of loan as promised by the bank, but was embarrassed to get nothing. Hence, the bank is also directed to pay to the complainant lumpsum Rs.10,000/-as compensation for mental agony and harassment alongwith litigation charges. The present complaint stands partly allowed.

12. The arguments on the complaint were heard on 28.03.2018 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated:04.04.2018

(A.P.S.Rajput)            

   President

 

(Inder Jit)        

     Member