BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH ======== Consumer Complaint No | : | 363 of 2010 | Date of Institution | : | 16.6.2010 | Date of Decision | : | 04.07.2011 |
Indira Kataria wife of Subhash Kataria, resident of flat No. 38, Block M, New Generation Apartments, Dhakauli, Zirakpur. …..Complainant V E R S U S 1] ICICI Bank Ltd., through its Manager (Home Loan)SCO 174-175, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, U.T., Chandigarh. 2. M/s Raglan Infrastructure Ltd. Regd. Office, F-31, D.B. Gupta Market, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. ……Opposite Parties CORAM: SH.P.D.GOEL PRESIDENT SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL MEMBER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER Argued by: None for the complainant Sh.Sandeep Suri, Counsel for OP-1 OP-2 exparte. PER P.D. GOEL, PRESIDENT In brief, the case of the complainant is that he was allotted a dwelling unit by OP No.2 vide allotment letter dated 16.4.2006. Thereafter, on the inducement of the official of OP No.1, he was ready to avail home loan from them and handed over all the requisite documents including original allotment letter. The complainant averred that subsequently, the OP No.1 vide letter dated 23.6.2006 intimated him regarding sanction of loan and also asked him to execute Triplicate Agreement in their favour, which he accordingly executed and handed over to them along with Original Agreement to Sell executed on 28.6.2006 between him and OP No.2. The averment of the complainant is that despite several representations and requests for disbursement of the loan the OP No.1 did not act but illegally rejected the case vide letter dated 11.7.2006, which amounts to deficiency and unfair trade practice on their part. Hence this complaint. 2. OP No. 1 in its reply admitted factual matrix of the case. On merits, it has been pleaded that the complainant could not fulfill the necessary criterion of availing loan and also did not enter into a loan agreement with the OP-bank, so the loan amount could not be disbursed. The OP denied of receiving any process fee, original allotment letter or cheques from the complainant. It has been pleaded that only documents pertaining ITR and residence proof etc. were taken from the complainant. The OP-1 pleaded that the sanction letter was issued but the disbursal of loan was subject to further conditions being met including signing of loan agreement, which was never done by the complainant. The OP-1 further clarified that triplicate agreement is different from loan agreement, which was never signed by him. Rest of the allegations of the complaint have been denied by the OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 3. OP No. 2 did not turn up despite service and suffered ex parte. 4. Parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 5. We have heard the counsel for the OP-1 and have also perused the record. 6. The grouse of the complainant is that OP No.1-Bank despite several representations and requests had failed to disburse the loan. The OP No.1-Bank has raised the plea that the complainant could not fulfill the necessary criteria for availing the loan so the loan was not disbursed. It is admitted that the sanction letter was issued but the same was subject to signing of loan agreement which was never done by the complainant. 7. OP No.1-Bank has addressed a communication to the complainant qua letter dated 24.02.2006 whereby the request was made to submit “Own Contribution Receipt (OCR)” and the original documents to expedite the disbursement process. There is nothing on the record to prove that the said letter dated 24.08.2006 was either replied or the documents demanded through this letter was ever supplied to the OP No.1-Bank. 8. Now it is proved on record that the complainant has failed to submit the documents which were asked through the letter dated 24.08.2006 at page 46 of the record. Therefore, it can legitimately be concluded that the OP No.1-Bank was well within its right not to disburse the loan. Moreover, the bank cannot be forced to disburse the loan without submitting the requisite documents and complying with the requisite conditions. In the instant case, the complainant has failed to supply the documents as demanded through the letter dated 24.08.2006. Consequently, it is held that the OPs are not guilty of rendering any deficient service to the complainant. 9. In view of the above findings, it is held that the complaint is devoid of any merits and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. 10. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned. | Sd/- | Sd/- | Sd/- | 4.7.2011 | [Madanjit Kaur Sahota] | [Rajinder Singh Gill] | [P.D.Goel] | | Member | Member | President |
| | MR. RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. P. D. Goel, PRESIDENT | DR. MRS MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER | | 
