DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

GAUTAM BUDDH NAGAR

Complaint No. – 578/2014

           Before:

          Anil Kumar Pundir -    President

          Smt.  Anju  Sharma  -    Member

          Date of Filing –   11.11.2014

          Date of Order –   13.06.2022

          In the matter of:

         Sh.  Himanshu  H. No – 57, Gali No. 7, Bank Colony, Mandoli Extn. Delhi -  

         110093

…………

IDBI Bank Ltd. Through its Manager Retail Assets Centre H- 1- A/30, First Floor, Sector – 63, Noida,

……….

        ANIL KUMAR PUNDIR, PRESIDENT

JUDGEMENT

 This complaint has been filed by the complainant to pass an order in favour of the complainant and against the opposite party thereby directing the opposite party to pay Rs 5.78 lac with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and direct the opposite party to pay a sum of RS 5,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% as compensation, damages to the compliment, to direct opposite party to pay a sum of Rs 25000 towards the litigation cost.

Brief facts giving rise to this complaint is that the complainant wanted to purchase a flat in Gulmohar green near Hindon airport from SVP builder Ghaziabad. The Builder told the complainant that the opposite party and SVP builder have tie-up with each other to sanction housing long to purchase of flat of SVP builder. The complainant was paid margin money to the SVP builder and entered into the agreement with the said builder and for the rest amount the complainant required a finance facility, therefore, the complainant had applied for a housing loan with the opposite party in October 2009 and completed all legal formalities but the opposite party did not disburse the housing loan to the complainant in time. When the complainant was disappointed and frustrated with the act and conduct of the opposite party he wrote several letters of complaint to RBI and the head office of the opposite party regarding the non-providing housing loan facility to the complainant after a lapse of a long period of eight months opposite party provided the loan facility to the complainant and due to lapse of 8 months the complainant sustained heavy financial loss of Rs. 5.74 Lac as penalty/ interest because the complement could not pay the remaining amount to the said builder on the due date. Due to aforesaid acts deeds and conduct of the opposite party the complainant suffered from great mental and physical pain and agony shock and financial loss of Rs 5.74 lac. The opposite party is guilty of negligence and deficiency in services and is liable to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs 5.74 lacs along with 18% interest per annum. The complainant has got served the opposite party with legal notice dated 08.07.2014 the legal notice was served upon the opposite party, and they falsely replied the same. Due to deficiency in services and negligence on the part of the opposite party, the complainant has suffered irreparable loss, injury, mental and physical pain and agony.

The opposite party has filed a written statement in which allegations of the complaint have been denied. The opposite party has contended that the present complaint is barred by law of limitation as admittedly the complainant has applied for a home loan in October 2009 and the present complaint has been filed in 2014 present complaint is an abuse of the process of law as  complainant has concealed the material facts. The correct facts of the matter are that the complainant along with his mother namely Shrimati Rajkumari had applied for housing loan of Rs 42 lacs vide home loan application dated 20.10. 2009 and on scrutiny of the said application form and documents it was found that the complainant is not eligible for the sanctioning of the said loan hence immediately the opposite party vide letter dated 09.12. 2009 had rejected the home loan application. That aforesaid rejection letter has been duly served/ acknowledged by the complainant. Thereafter in the month of March 2010, the complainant again approach the opposite party and requested to reconsider his loan application for some lesser amount. An authorised representative of the opposite party has informed the complainant the maximum loan amount of Rs.17 lakh shall be sanctioned to which the complainant readily agreed. In these circumstances, the opposite party processed the home loan application afresh and sanctioned for home loan amount of Rs 17,22,601/- vide sanction letter dated 18.05.2010. Accordingly, the opposite party informed the complainant about the issuance of the said sanction letter and requested the execution of the home loan document however the complainant never visited the office of the opposite party. The aforesaid Sanction letter had a validity period of 90 days and was liable to be cancelled within the said stipulated period and the complainant never approached between 90 days of the aforesaid sanction letter hence the same was automatically cancelled. Thereafter again in the month of September 2010, the complainant approach the opposite party and narrated his inability for the execution of documents in lieu of sanction letter dated 18.05.2010. Taking a sympathetic approach the opposite party again processed the home loan application for issuance fresh sanction letter and accordingly sanction letter dated 18.09.2010 was issued for sanction of home loan amount of Rs 17 lakh in compliance of the aforesaid sanction

letter the complainant thereafter had executed the home loan Agreement and other prescribed document dated 28.09. 2010 in favour of opposite party. Accordingly the opposite party has disbursed the home loan amount as per request and demands of the complainant and complainant is duly enjoying the loan facilities as advanced by the opposite party. The complainant never raised any complaint alleging any deficiency of service against the opposite party as he had been satisfied with the quality of service  advanced by the opposite party. After the aforesaid proceeding and nearly after lapse of more than four years to complainant with mellified intentions raised a frivlous issue vide legal notice and the same has been duly addressed by the opposite party vide reply  dated 29.07.2014 from the above stated facts  it is crystal clear that the opposite party has provided the best services to the complainant and there is neither deficiency of service nor unfair trade practice on and the opposite party has never committed any mental harassment or agony against the complainant and the complainant is not maintainable and deserve to be dismissed outrightly. 

Complainant has filed an  affidavit in evidence and copies of documents in support of  in her complaint. 

Opposite party file an affidavit in  support of their written statement and copies of documents in support of their WS.

 We have heard the parties and perused to the file.

It appears from the Contentions of the complaint that complainant applied for home loan to the opposite party. In the complaint it has not been mentioned for how much amount home loan was applied by the  complainant to the opposite parties. In the written statement it is mentioned by the opposite party that complainant applied for  home loan for a mount of Rs 42 lac, on the scrutiny of the said application form and documents it was found that the complainant is not eligible for the sanctioning of said loan. Complainant was informed about the rejection  of the loan application wide letter 09.12.2009. Complainant has not mentioned in the complaint about the rejection of initial amount of Rs 42 lacs. The contention of complainant are that they had applied for housing loan with the opposite party in first week of October 2009 and completed all  legal formalities to the satisfaction of the opposite party and as per requirement, but opposite party did not disburse housing loan to the complainant in time as required by the complainant after several requests. Complainant made several complaint to RBI and head office of the opposite party regarding the non providing housing loan facility to the complainant.Opposite party  disbursed housing loan after a lapse of long period of 8 months complainant and sustained heavy financial loss of Rs 5.74 lakh as penalty because complainant could not pay the remaining amount to the  builder on its due date. The case of the opposite party is that after the rejection of home loan amount of Rs 42 lakh complainant again approached opposite party in March 2010 for a lesser amount  and  home loan of  rupees 17,22,601/- was  sanctioned but  that was

not taken by the complainant within 90 days validity complainant did not execute the home loan documents before the opposite party. Again in the month of September 2010 the complainant approached for home loan and taking a sympathetic approach opposite party again process the home loan application for issuance of a fresh sanction letter and accordingly sanction letter dated 18.09. 2010 was issued for a sanction of home loan amount of Rs 17 lakh which was disbursed as per the request and demands of the complainant and the complainant is truly enjoying the loan facilities as advanced by the opposite party. It is clear from the written statement that the opposite party has processed the loan application of the complainant multiple times it was the complainant who could not execute the loan documents before the opposite party in time. Finally, the loan was sanctioned in September 2010 and disbursed as per the request and demands of the complainant. It is clear from the pleadings of the parties and supporting documents that in September 2010 when the complainant complete formalities and execute home loan documents before the opposite party home loan was sanctioned and disbursed as per the request and demand of the complainant. There appears to be no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.

                                                Order                                                       

 The complaint is dismissed parties shall bear their own cost.

  Anju Sharma                                                          Anil Kumar Pundir

     Member                                                                  President

Judgement announced today with our signature and date in open court/commission.

 Anju Sharma                                                        Anil Kumar Pundir

      Member                                                                  President

Date: 13/06/2022

Place: Gautam Buddh Nagar