ORDER                                    Dated:  27-01-2017

Mohd. Anwar Alam, President

1. The complainant has filed this complaint on 11-12-2015 and alleged that  he had applied for the allotment of DDA Flats in New Delhi and was declared as a successful allottee in the said draw and he was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 23 Lakhs and odd amount with the DDA. In the last week of July 2015, the complainant had approached OP2  and its agent had collected all the documents necessary and required for the purpose of granting the home loan. Pursuant to the telephonic messages, on 19.08.2015 the OP2’s official had visited the complainant at his Patiala House Court office for getting all the documents and agreement signed and also collected one demand draft for a sum of Rs. 6200/- in favour of OP Bank.  On 26.08.2015 the complainant visited OP2’s office and was informed that the application for home has been rejected though, till 25.08.2015 it was lying sanctioned and due to these above said acts of omission and commission by the OPs he felt victimized and persecuted besides being cheated.  Hence complainant prayed to direct OPs  to pass an award of Rs. 6200/- along with a sum of Rs 20000 /- , Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and agony an interest @ 18% on the awarded amount.
2. In reply, OPs submitted   that  merely filing of the alleged application for home loan does not give the right to the complainant to get the sanction or disbursal of the loan. OPs also submitted that the loan  application of the complainant was scrutinized but the loan was not sanctioned to him as the requisite parameters were not fulfilled and  amount of Rs. 6,200/- was charged from the complainant towards processing charges which is non refundable. OPs denied rest of the allegations made in the complaint and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
3. The complainant has filed rejoinder to the written statement and denied the objections made by the OPs and supported his complaint.
4. In support of his complaint complainant filed his own affidavit along with documents i.e. copy of legal notice (Annexure A) , Regd. AD receipt (Annexure B) , speed post receipt (Annexure C) and AD card (Annexure D).
5.  In support of reply OPs filed affidavit of Akriti Mishra along with documents i.e. reply (Ex.DW1/1).
6.  Both the parties filed their written arguments.
7. We have heard the arguments and considered the evidence led by the parties and their written and oral arguments.  In this case points to be considered are as under:-

1. Whether complainant is a consumer?

 (b) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?

 (c) Relief?

  8.   In reply OPs admitted filing of application of home loan and receipt of Rs. 6,200/- towards processing charges from complainant hence complainant is a consumer.

 9.   Complainant deposed that he approached OP for granting a home loan for Rs. 20,00,000/- in the last week of July 2015 and on 19.08.2015 OPs demanded a sum of Rs. 6,200/- in favour of ICICI Bank. This amount was admittedly deposited with the OPs thereafter OPs rejected the application of complainant on 26.08.2015.   These facts were not denied by the OPs hence it is clear that application for home loan by the complainant was pending since July 2015 and it was rejected on 26.08.2015 despite complainant deposited the amount of Rs. 6,200/- on demand of OPs dated 19.08.2015.  As both the parties did not file any documentary evidence therefore oral evidence of the parties is considered. Admittedly, the complainant filed his loan application in the last week of July 2015 which was kept pending and thereafter rejected on 26.08.2015.During this period OPs demanded a D.D. of Rs. 6,200/- on 19.08.2015. Therefore this amount of Rs. 6,200/- cannot be treated as processing amount of the loan which was taken just before 6 days prior to rejection of loan application of complainant. This is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. It is true that OPs has a right to reject the loan application of the complainant on whatsoever ground which cannot be scrutinized by this forum but a demand of Rs. 6,200/- by the OPs just six days before the rejection of the loan application is unjustified.

10. Looking to the above facts and circumstances we are of the opinion that  an amount of Rs. 6,200/- charged from the complainant prior to the rejection of the loan application by the OPs is unjustified and it is suffice to prove deficiency in service on the part of OPs, therefore, we direct OPs as under:-

1. To refund Rs. 6,200/- to the complainant along with the interest of 10 % p.a. from the date of deposit till realization.

 2. To pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- as harassment to the complainant

 3. To pay a sum of Rs. 3000/- as cost of litigation.

11.  The above amount is payable within two  months from the date of receipt of this order failing which an  interest @ 10% p.a. will be payable on the whole above mentioned amount.

12.  Copy of the order be made available to the parties free of cost as per law. File be  consigned to record room.

           Announced on this ………………