DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  BARNALA, CAMP COURT AT AMRITSAR, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : RBT/CC/2018/457

Date of Institution : 25.06.2018/29.11.2021

Date of Decision : 19.07.2022

Sh. Rakesh Sharma son of Sh. Parkash Chand Sharma R/o House No. 49, Street No. 9, Sunder Nagar, Near Shivala Bhaiyan Mandir, Amritsar. …Complainant

Versus

1. Indiabulls Housing Finance through its Branch Manager/Senior Sales Officer, SCO-31, KK Tower, First Floor, District Shopping Centre, Ranjit Avenue, B-Block, Amritsar.

2. Sh. Navdeep Singh Senior Sales Officer of Indiabulls Housing Finance, SCO-31, KK Tower, First Floor, District Shopping Centre, Ranjit Avenue, B-Block, Amritsar.

3. Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited through its Corporate Head, Corporate Office Indiabulls Finance Centre, Tower 01, 4th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai (W), Maharashtra-400013. 

…Opposite Parties

Complaint U/S 12 of The Consumer Protection Act 1986 as amended up to date

Present: Sh. Bhavneek Singh Sethi Adv counsel for the complainant.

Sh. Sumit Sharma Adv counsel for opposite parties.

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2. Smt. Urmila Kumari : Member

(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER PRESIDENT):

    The present complaint has been received by transfer from District Consumer Commission, Amritsar in compliance of the order dated 26.11.2021 of the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. The complainant filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against Indiabulls Housing Finance and others. (in short the opposite parties). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that the complainant was in need of financial help for which he met opposite party No. 2 who is senior sales officer of opposite parties No. 1 and 3 and posted in the office of opposite parties at Amritsar. The complainant put his proposal for grant of loan of Rs. 7 lacs against immovable property of his mother namely Smt. Manorma Devi. The opposite party No. 2 assured him that his proposal for loan under their scheme Loan Against Property will shortly be processed and sanctioned. The opposite party No. 2 prepared loan proposal on their printed forms and got the same signed from the complainant and also obtained copies of all relevant papers with assurance that complainant's proposal will be scrutinized for sanction. After that the opposite party No. 2 demanded and received Rs. 5,900/- from the complainant which was paid vide cheque bearing No. 53334 which the opposite parties got encashed on 17.5.2018. The opposite parties admitted the receipt of loan application No. 953967 for Rs. 7 lacs vide their email dated 18.5.2018. But after two days the complainant was surprised to read email sent by the opposite parties stating that they are unable to further process his loan application and further asked the complainant that for any clarification he get in touch with customer care. The complainant took the matter with customer care of opposite parties to know the reason for rejection of loan proposal and he was informed that We don't do LAP case Loan Against Property less than 20 lacs in Amritsar because it is the rule of our company India Bulls. But this fact never informed by the opposite parties to the complainant and got encashed cheque of Rs. 5,900/- by misleading the complainant as the complainant had completed loan proposal of Rs. 7 lacs as per his requirement. The complainant also sent email dated 23.5.2018 to the opposite party No. 2. The complainant received email dated 31.5.2018 from the opposite parties that following property and business is a not doable case hence cannot provide a clearance on this loan account. The proposed property offered as security is situated in post colony of the city having area of 100 Square yards having market value more than Rs. 30 lacs and is free from all encumbrances. The complainant replied that if Amritsar office of opposite party was not authorized to do loan less than Rs. 20 lacs against property then how the opposite party No. 2 had filled the form of case of loan of Rs. 7 lacs from the complainant. The opposite party extracted the amount of Rs. 5,900/- from the complainant by adopting unfair trade practice. The complainant approached the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 for refund of his amount of Rs. 5,900/- and for return of original loan file but they refused to refund the amount and threatened the complainant. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

1) The opposite parties may be directed to refund back Rs. 5,900/- alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of encashment of cheque till final payment.      

2) To pay Rs. 50,000/- on account of compensation for harassment and mental tension.

3) To pay cost of legal expenses.

4) Any other relief to which the complainant is found entitled. 

3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties appeared through their Advocate but failed to file written version to rebut the case of the complainant and right of the opposite party for filing written version was forfeited vide order dated 28.8.2018.  

4. In support of his complaint, the complainant filed his affidavit and documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-12 with the complaint and to rebut the case of the complainant the opposite parties not filed any document.  

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file carefully.

6. The main grievance of the complainant in the present complaint is that the complainant are that the complainant applied for a loan of Rs. 7 lacs and also paid Rs. 5,900/- but the opposite parties have not processed the loan of the complainant and also not refunded the amount of Rs. 5,900/- which was received by the opposite parties. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant put his proposal for grant of loan of Rs. 7 lacs against immovable property with the opposite party and opposite party No. 2 assured him that his proposal for loan under their scheme Loan Against Property will shortly be processed and sanctioned. Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that  the opposite party No. 2 prepared loan proposal on their printed forms and got the same signed from the complainant and also obtained copies of all relevant papers and demanded Rs. 5,900/- from the complainant which was paid vide cheque bearing No. 53334 which the opposite parties got encashed on 17.5.2018 which fact also proved from the copy of account statement of complainant Ex.C-3. The opposite parties admitted the receipt of loan application No. 953967 for Rs. 7 lacs vide their email dated 18.5.2018 Ex.C-4. Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that but after two days the opposite parties  replied to the complainant  that they are unable to further process his loan application as they cannot process less than 20 lacs loan in Amritsar as per rules of the company. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that if they cannot process loan against property less than Rs. 20 lacs in Amritsar they why they received the papers from the complainant and have received amount of Rs. 5,900/- from him which is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their part.

7. We have perused the copy of statement of account Ex.C-3 from which it is proved on the file that the complainant paid Rs. 5,900/- to the opposite parties vide cheque No. 53334 on 17.5.2018. The receiving of loan application also admitted by the opposite parties vide email dated 14.5.2018 Ex.C-4. It is also proved on the file vide email dated 18.5.2018 that the opposite parties refused to process the loan application of the complainant. The complainant deposed in his affidavit that the opposite parties not processed the loan against property of the complainant on the ground that they have not processed the loan against property less than Rs. 20 lacs in Amritsar as per company rules. But in our view if the opposite parties not processed the loan against property less than Rs. 20 lacs then as to why they have received loan application and other documents from the complainant besides Rs. 5,900/- from him for processing of loan. It is already very much in the knowledge of the opposite parties that they cannot process the loan against property less than Rs. 20 lacs but even then they received the amount of Rs. 5,900/- from the complainant is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Even, the opposite parties have not filed written version or any evidence to rebut the allegations of the complainant. 

8. In view of the above discussion, present complaint is partly allowed against the opposite parties No. 1 and 3 and opposite parties No. 1 and 3 are directed to refund the amount of Rs. 5,900/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint till actual realization. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs. 3,300/- to the complainant as compensation for mental tension and harassment and Rs. 2,200/- as costs and litigation expenses. Both the opposite parties No. 1 and 3 jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. Compliance of this order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of the order will be supplied to the parties by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

        19th Day of July 2022

 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President

              

(Urmila Kumari)

Member