Per Mr.B.S.Wasekar, Hon’ble President

1)                The present complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to the complainant, she is the housewife and owner of Flat No.402, ‘D’Wing, 4^th Floor, Kohinoor Apartment, Dadar (West), Mumbai.  In the month of September-2011, she approached the O.P.No.1 for home loan against the mortgage of above flat. The O.P.No.1 vide letter dated 20^th September, 2011 sanctioned loan amount of Rs.1,10,00,000/-. The complainant paid administrative charges of Rs.60,665/- on 20^th September, 2011 to the O.P.No.1.  She also paid valuation charges of Rs.4,000/- by cheque dated 6^th September, 2011 in favour of Amarjeet Kaur as per the instruction of the O.P.No.1.  The O.P.No.1 rejected the proposal of home loan without assigning any reason and returned the original documents to the complainant.  The complainant sent letter dated 17^th October, 2011 requesting the opponents to refund the administrative charges and valuation charges of Rs.64,665/-. The O.P.No.2 telephonically informed the complainant that the charges once paid can not be refunded.  The opponent sanctioned the loan amount but failed to disburse it. It amounts to deficiency in service and also unfair trade practice. Therefore, the complainant has filed this complaint for recovery of amount of Rs.64,665/- with interest.  She has also claimed cost of Rs.15,000/- and compensation of Rs.15,000/-. 

2)                The O.P.No.1 appeared and filed written statement.  It is submitted that the complaint and her family members are habitual litigants.  Several complaints filed by them and against them are pending in various consumer forums. The complaint is bad for misjoinder of O.P.No.2 as the O.P.No.2 is not the service provider.  It is submitted that the complainant secured loan amount of Rs.57,00,000/-by creating security over the Flat No.402.  She has also secured loan from IIFL on the same flat.  Again, the present loan was secured on the basis of the same flat. Consumer Complaint No.CC/11/234 is filed and pending in this Forum itself.  Amarjeet Kaur is not party to this complaint and the opponent has no concern with him.  Loan sanction is based on the verification of documents and the disbursement is based on the capacity for repayment of the borrower.  The foundation of the complaint is based on a fraud played by the complainant therefore the complaint deserves to be dismissed.  The proposal of the complainant was considered and after investigation the security was found not suitable for the repayment of the loan therefore the loan was not disbursed.  The complainant is not entitled for the refund of the amount therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.

3)                The O.P.No.2 appeared and filed written statement.  It is submitted that the O.P.No.2 was not the service provider therefore the complaint against him is not maintainable.  

4)                After hearing both the parties and after going through the record, following points arise for our consideration

POINTS

REASONS

5) As to Point No.1 & 2 :- Admittedly, the complainant secured loan of Rs.57,00,000/- from the O.P.No.1 against the mortgage of her flat No.402 on 30^th May, 2009.  As per letter issued by the IIFL dated 11^th October, 2011 the complainant approached IIFL and sanctioned loan to the complainant on the security of the property of the complainant Flat No.402.  The said loan amount was disbursed by IIFL by cheque dated 16^th August, 2011 for Rs.56,68,989.24/-. Again, the complainant approached the O.P.No.1 and the O.P.No.1 sanctioned loan amount of Rs.1,10,00,000/- on the basis of the security of the same flat of the complainant.  Thus, the complainant has secured three loan on the same flat.  According to the opponents, on enquiry it was found that the complainant was not able to repay the loan amount therefore the loan amount was not disbursed.  The complainant has not disputed that she secured three loan amount on the basis of the same flat.  We wonder how the loan amount of Rs.1,10,00,000/- was sanctioned by the O.P. when IIFL has already issued letter to the O.P.No.1 informing that the complainant has secured loan on the security of Flat No.402.  It is necessary for the O.P.No.1 bank to make enquiry of the concern bank officer who sanctioned the huge loan amount knowing that the complainant has already secured loan on the same flat. On this background, the decision of the O.P.No.1/Bank not to disburse the loan amount appears to be correct.   In fact, it is the mischief played by the complainant therefore the complainant is not entitled to approach this Forum claiming refund of the administrative charges.  According to the complainant she paid valuation charges of Rs.4,000/-  to Amarjeet Kaur at the instance of the O.P.No.1.  The complainant has not produced any evidence to show the authority of Amarjeet Kaur for accepting valuation charges or showing his concern with the O.P.no.1/Bank.  Therefore, the O.P.no.1/Bank is not responsible for the payment made to Amarjeet Kaur.

6)                The learned advocate for the O.P.No.1 has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Vishnu Agencies –Versus- Chairman, Indian Overseas Bank reported in 1993(3) CPR 388.  In view of this judgment, it is the discretion of the Bank to sanction and disburse the loan amount depending on the actual requirement of the party concerned and its proper utilization and the Consumer Forum can not sit in judgment on the decision of the bank.  In view of this judgment, the present complaint is not maintainable.

7)                The complainant has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble State Commission, Uttarakhand in First Appeal No.101 of 2008 dated 10^th May, 2012.  But, the fact before us are totally different.  In the complaint before us, the complainant has suppressed the earlier loan secured on the basis of the same flat.  It is the mischief played by the complainant therefore the abovecited judgment is not applicable.

8)                Thus, there is no merit in the complaint.  The complainant herself has played mischief by taking various loans on the same flat.  Therefore, the complaint deserves to be dismissed with cost. Hence, the following order.

ORDER

1. Complaint stands dismissed.
2. The complainant is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the O.P.No.1/Bank as cost of this proceeding within a period of one month from today.
3. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost.

Pronounced on 25^th July, 2014