DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 58 of 14.2.2019

                                      Decided on:   29.10.2020

Akashdeep Singh son of  Harmesh Pal R/o Heera Colony, Near Nau Gajja Peer, VPO Bahadurgarh, Tehsil and District Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. ICICI Bank Limited, Leela Bhawan Branch Patiala through its Branch Manager.
2. Isha Stated as Assistant Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd., Leela Bhawan Branch, Patiala.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member    

ARGUED BY

                                      Sh.Pardeep Kumar,Advocate,counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.R.K.Pandey,Advocate, counsel for OP No.1.

                                      OP No.2 ex-parte.

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Sh.Akashdeep Singh   (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against ICICI  Bank Ltd. and another(hereinafter referred to as the OP/s).
2. The brief facts of the case  are that the complainant  is working as Constable in Punjab Police Department and with a view to get sanction home loan of Rs.20lakh , he approached and requested the bank of the OPs in the month of November,2018 and the OP No.2 instructed him to submit the documents i.e. property record, income tax return, salary slip,ID card of Punjab Police Department and also the documents related to his mother namely Neelam Rani. It is averred that the complainant submitted all the documents as desired by the OP No.2, in the office of OP No.1.OP No.2 gave assurance that the loan will be sanctioned jointly in favour of the complainant and his mother within few days. He also handed over a blank cheque in the first week of December,2018 as per instructions of OP No.2.
3. It is further averred that OP No.2 withdrew Rs.4720/- on 29.12.2018 from the account of the complainant without his consent. However, the OP No.2 refused to sanction the home loan stating that the OPs never sanctioned the loan in favour of the policemen below the rank of Head Constable.Thereafter the complainant requested OPs to return the amount of Rs.4720/- withdrew by them from the account of the complainant but the OPs flatly refused to return the same. The complainant also got sent a legal notice dated 16.1.2019  upon the OPs but the OPs failed to pay any heed to the request of the complainant. There is thus deficiency in service and mal practice on the part of the OPs which caused mental agony,financial loss and harassment to the complainant. Hence this complaint with the prayer that the complaint be accepted by giving direction to the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.4720/- alongwith interest @18% per annum from 28.12.2018 till actual payment; to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and also to pay Rs.5500/-as costs of litigation
4. Upon notice, OPs appeared trough their counsel and contested the case by filing written reply. The OPs raised  preliminary objections that the complainant is not a consumer; that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
5. On merits, it is admitted to the extent that the complainant has applied for the home loan from the OPs. It is submitted that the complainant submitted cheque of Rs.4720/- with OP No.1 against processing fee of loan which is required to be taken in advance. The complainant and his mother namely Neelam Rani (co-applicant) executed loan application form. The loan was processed by OP No.1. It is stated that the report of CIBIL of Smt. Neelam Rani showed some adverse remarks i.e. “Suit filed, willful default and Written off”. As such the OPs have not sanctioned the loan to the complainant. It is averred that processing fee is charged by the bank to check the loan eligibility etc. of the customers where the bank has to pay the charges. It is further averred that processing fee is always a non refundable amount and it cannot be refunded. Thus, there is no deficiency in service and mal practice adopted by the OPs. The OPs denied all other averments made in the complaint and have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
6. In evidence, the complainant tendered his affidavit,Ex.CA alongwith documents Ex.C1 copy of pass book, Ex.C2 copy of legal notice, Exs.C3&C4 postal receipts,Ex.C5 copy of ID card and closed the evidence.
7. On the other hand, the OP No.1 tendered affidavit Ex.OPA of Preet Sharma, Territory Manager, ICICI HFC Ltd. alongwith documents Ex.OP1 copy of identity card of Preet Sharma,Ex.OP2 copy of loan application form, Ex.OP3 copy of report of CIBIL and closed the evidence.
8. The OP filed the written arguments. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
9. The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant applied for housing loan of Rs.20lacs.The ld. counsel further argued that thewith the OPs. The ld. counsel further argued that loan was never sanctioned and OP No.2 withdrew Rs.4720/- on 29.12.2018 as such this amount be refunded.
10. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for OP No.1 argued that this amount cannot be refunded as this amount was spent as processing fee as is clear from the document,Ex.OP2 which is loan application form. The ld. counsel further argued that it has been clearly mentioned on the application form Ex.OP2 that this amount is non refundable. It is further argued that case of the complainant was sent to CIBIL and report was received by the bank that there was willful default by the person who approached for loan. The ld. counsel for the OPs has also cited judgments New Bank of India and Anr. Vs. Smt.Surinder Kaur 2003(114) Comp cas 24(SC), Sree Kanaka Durga Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India 2003(1)CPJ 62,  Pawan Kumar Birla Vs. Branch Manager State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur 1991(1)CPJ 192 and Manager State Bank of India Vs. P.Karuppiah & Anr. 2003(3)CPJ 290.
11. The complainant has field this complaint for the payment of Rs.4720/- withdrawn by the OPs. As per the complainant he has applied for loan of Rs.20lacs with the bank and submitted all the documents with the bank but the loan was not sanctioned and the bank deducted Rs.4720/- from his account.
12. To prove his case, the complainant has tendered his affidavit,Ex.CA and has deposed as per his complaint, stating that the amount of Rs.4720/- be returned. The complainant has filed bank statement of Rs. HDFC bank vide which Rs.4720/- was deducted from his account.Ex.C2 is the legal notice.
13. On behalf of the OP No.1, it has tendered Ex.OPA affidavit of Preet Sharma, who  has stated that complainant has deposited amount of Rs.4720 with OP No.1against processing fee which is required to be taken  in advance for processing of loan. It is further stated that the bank has to check the eligibility of both the applicants through various documents and channels out of which CIBIL is the important check of customers before sanctioning of loan. It is further mentioned that CIBIL report of co applicant Smt.Neela, Rani shown some adverse remarks “Suit filed, willful default and written off”. The application form filed by OP is Ex.OP2, on page no.2  of application form, it is mentioned that Rs.4720/- was taken by the bank vide cheque and this amount is non refundable processing/administrative fee. So it is clear that the amount of Rs.4720/- was taken by the bank from the applicant as processing fee. This application form is signed by the complainant and his mother Neelam Rani, who  has not been made a party in the present complaint. The OP has tendered the report of Credit Information Bureau (India) Limited as Ex.OP3, in which customer is shown as Neelam Rani. On the last page of the report it is mentioned that she is a willful defaulter and written off. It is also mentioned that suit filed, willful default and written off. Due to report of CIBIL loan was not sanctioned.
14. So it is clear that amount of Rs.4720/- was taken as non refundable processing fee by the bank and this fee cannot be refunded to the complainant.
15. So due to our above discussion, as the amount was withdrawn as processing fee , and loan application was duly processed and it was found that the co-applicant i.e. Neela Rani was a willful defaulter as per report of CIBIL,Ex.OP3, therefore, the complaint is without merit and is dismissed accordingly. Parties are left to  bear their own costs.      

ANNOUNCED

DATED:29.10.2020     

                             Vinod Kumar Gulati             Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                    Member                                       President