Haryana

Karnal

CC/701/2019

Mohan - Complainant(s)

Versus

IDFC Bank Limited - Opp.Party(s)

13 Jun 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 701 of 2019

                                                          Date of instt.14.10.2019

                                                          Date of Decision 13.06.2022

 

Mohan son of Shri Sumer Chand, resident of ward no.8, Dodwa, Taraori, District Karnal.

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

IDFC Bank Ltd., Sector-12, Karnal through its Manager.

 

                                                                        …..Opposite Party.

 

Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment Complaint u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

 

 Present: Complainant in person.

               Shri Kunal Chopra, counsel for the opposite party.

                                        

                (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                        The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on averments that complainant had applied a loan against property from OP bank in the month of February, 2019 and the same was sanctioned in the month of March, 2019. The OP has demanded a cheque of Rs.3000/- as processing fee from the complainant and as  per demand, complainant issued a cheque bearing no.33027089 dated 14.03.2019 of Union Bank of India Taraori Branch District Karnal in favour of the OP. Thereafter, all of sudden OP refused to give loan to the complainant after receiving the abovesaid amount as processing fee. The complainant requested the OP to refund his amount of Rs.3000/- as no loan is being provided by the bank to the complainant. Initially, OP assured the complainant that the said amount will be refunded within three months but thereafter OP flatly refused to pay the same. Then, complainant sent a legal notice dated 21.08.2019 to the OP and reminder dated 18.09.2019 through which he requested the OP to refund the aforesaid amount but it also did not yield any result. In this way there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version  raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and jurisdiction. On merits, it is pleaded that the complainant had applied for a loan against property which was rejected and no agreement was there between the parties. It was just an application for loan which was rejected due to discrepancy in documents as such the documents were not as per the criteria of the bank. It is further pleaded that no service at all has been hired by and/or availed by the complainant from the OP, hence no question at all can arise of any deficiency in service. It is further pleaded that complainant does not come under the definition of consumer as defined in Section 2(1)(d) now in Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act as the loan in question was not advanced to the complainant due to ineligibility of the documents as provided by the complainant. There is a processing fee for documents verification and reference checks etc. the bank reserves a right to forfeit the amount of processing fees for loan processing. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied by the OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/, copy of legal notice Ex.C1, postal receipt Ex.C2, copy of reminder of legal notice Ex.C3, postal receipt Ex.C4, copy of bank statement Ex.C5, copy of email Ex.C6, copy of Aadhar card of complainant Ex.C7 and closed the evidence on 09.02.2021 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Manpreet Singh, Manager-Legal Ex.OP1/A and closed the evidence on 19.04.2022 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the OP and have gone through the evidence available on the file.

7.             As per version of the complainant, he had applied a loan against property from OP bank in the month of February, 2019 and OP has charged Rs.3000/- as processing fee. After receiving the abovesaid amount as processing fee, OP has refused to pass the loan. The complainant requested the OP to refund his amount of Rs.3000/- as no loan is being provided by the bank to the complainant OP refused to pay the same.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that complainant had applied for a loan against property which was rejected by the OP due to ineligibility of the documents as provided by the complainant. There is a processing fee for documents verification etc. and the bank has rightly forfeited the said amount and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             Admittedly, the complainant had applied for a loan against property and deposited Rs.3000/- as processing fee.

10.           As per version of the OP the loan in question was not advanced to the complainant due to ineligibility of the documents. The amount of Rs.3000/- was a processing fee etc. and the bank reserves right to forfeit the amount of processing fees for loan processing.

11.           The onus to prove his case lies upon the complainant. The complainant placed on record only copy of legal notice Ex.C1, postal receipt Ex.C2, copy of reminder of legal notice Ex.C3, postal receipt Ex.C4, copy of bank statement Ex.C5, copy of email Ex.C6, copy of Aadhar card of complainant Ex.C7. In support of his version complainant has not placed on record any documents which proves that OP has wrongly forfeited the amount of Rs.3000/- and OP is liable to refund the same. Thus, complainant has miserably failed to prove his case by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. Hence, in view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

12.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we do not find any merits in the complaint and same deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dated: 13.06.2022

 

                                                                President,

                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                      Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

            (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary) 

                   Member