DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.34/2013
Sh. Firoz Ahmad
S/o Sh. Abdus Salam
R/o Flat No.902, Tower-A
Amarpali Sapphire, Sector-45,
Noida-201303 ……Complainant
Versus
The Branch Manager
ICICI Bank Ltd.
S-26, Veera Towers,
Green Park Extn. Near Uphar Cinema Complex,
New Delhi ……Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 18.01.13 Date of Order : 17.12.15
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
Brief facts of the case are that the Complainant had applied for a home loan of Rs.14 lakhs on 14.08.12 for a residential villa at “Paramount Golf Forest, Greater Nodia” which was sanctioned by OP on 13.09.2012. The OP charged an amount of Rs.5618/- as a processing fee. After several telephonic requests for disbursement of the sanctioned loan, he ultimately sent a email to the customer care cell on 01.10.2012. The customer care informed him vide emails dated 04.10.2012 and 16.10.12 that they would revert back by 22.10.12.
The customer care cell informed him that his request had been forwarded to senior officials and the same was under process and stated that status would be confirmed by 31.10.2012. He contacted the sales manager of OP (Mr. Pallab Roy) over his mobile number, he also informed the customer care cell of OP and stated that Mr. Roy would arrange for the disbursement of loan. After the passage of about 3 months he sent emails on 15th & 17th November, 2012. In response to both the emails the customer care vide their email dated 16th & 19th November, 2012 informed him that his request had been forwarded to their senior officials and was being attended to on priority basis. On 22.11.12, the customer care cell informed vide their email “that as per their technical team the respondent had put funding on the captioned project on hold and were not disbursing any loan against the said property”. He was being charged an interest @ 18% on the outstanding amount failing which the builder would process further as per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. He narrated all the points to the OP on 22.12.12 but the OP has informed that currently they are not disbursing any loan against the said property. The Complainant has prayed as under:
- Direct the OP to disburse the loan sanctioned by it more than four months back and pay back the interest charged by the builder due to delayed payment. If the OP fails to do so, they be directed to return the processing fee charged by it against sanctioning the loan.
- Direct the OP to pay the interest being charged by the builder on account of delayed payment.
- Direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- for causing mental agony and harassment to the Complainant.
Appearance was put on behalf of OP. Thereafter, the OP was proceeded exparte vide order dated 09.02.14. No reply has been filed on behalf of the OP.
Complainant has filed his exparte evidence by way of affidavit as well as written arguments.
We have heard the Complainant and have also gone through the file very carefully.
Complainant has placed on record a letter dated 13.09.12 (copy Ex. CW1/A) showing offer letter for facility vide application No. 777897242 in respect of sanction of Rs.14 lakhs as loan to be repayable in 180 months (15 years). Loan was sanctioned in the name of the complainant and Mrs. Shagufta Yasmin. The copy Ex. CW-1/B relates to bank statement of the Complainant wherein an amount of Rs.5618/- was debited from his account in favour of OP towards processing fee. Complainant sent various emails to the OP (copy Ex. CW-1/C to Ex. CW-1/L) regarding disbursement of loan amount. The OP vide email dated 21.11.12 (copy Ex. CW-1/M) informed the Complainant that “as per our technical team, we have put funding on the captioned project on hold and are currently not disbursing any loan against the said property”.
OP has the knowledge about the filing of the complaint but has not chosen to contest it.
Averments made in the complaint and evidence led by the Complainant have remained uncontroverted and unchallenged. Hence, there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the Complainant. Even otherwise, after sanctioning of loan amount, the withholding of release of the loan amount to the complainant without any valid and/or convincible reason whatsoever was an act of deficiency on the part of OP. Processing fee of Rs. 5618/- was charged from the complainant without an intention to pay the loan amount. This amounted to unfair trade practice. Therefore, we hold the OP guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and allow the complaint and direct the OP to refund the processing fee of Rs.5618/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of its deposit till the date of realization. OP is also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 40,000/- for harassment and mental agony undergone by the Complainant including cost of litigations.
The order shall be complied within 30 days of receipt of copy of this order.
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 17.12.15.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
Case No. 34/13
17.12.2015
Present – None
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is allowed and the OP is directed to refund the processing fee of Rs.5618/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of its deposit till the date of realization. OP is also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 40,000/- for harassment and mental agony undergone by the Complainant including cost of litigations. The order shall be complied within 30 days of receipt of copy of this order. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N. K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
