District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.516/2022.
Date of Institution: .28.09.2022.
Date of Order: 10.02.2023.
Smt. Hemlata Aggarwal wife of Shri Vinod Kumar Aggarwal, at present residing at House No. 6478, Pocket-1, Sector-3, Faridabad, Haryana, Aadhaar No. 5995 3960 2390, mobile No. 7983066787.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
India Infoline Finance Limited Bank, Plot No.C, Ist floor, Mahaluxmi Metro, Vishali Road, Sector-4, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh – 201010.
…Opposite party……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana…………Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Rishipal Sharma and Sh. Vikrant Gaur, counsel for the complainant.
Opposite party exparte vide order dated 21.10.2022.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant also taken a home loan from the opposite party which the opposite party receive don 18.01.2021. This home loan was in the name of the complainant and subsidy paper and all other papers were in her name, which fulfils the eligibility criteria of PMAY subsidy. The son of the complainant namely Gauyrav Aggarwal made correspondence with the opposite party on the instruction of the complainant. The opposite party had filled the subsidy form and had told the complainant that she was in LIG category and the opposite party also mentioned LIG category on the loan sanction letter given to the complainant. Against this loan the complainant had applied for Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojna, which terms and conditions fulfilled completely and regarding this the complainant had provided all the information about her family and income proof to the opposite party. Within 3 months of taking the loan the application of PMAY ID was generated by the opposite party, which was the first step of PM Awas Yojna. To get the related information about clearing the further step of PMAY, the complainant made telephonic call to the opposite party after 3 months and the opposite party told that due to covid, there was a delay in government subsidy process. When the step of subsidy did not got, the complainant till February, 2022 again talked to the opposite party and its customer care and the complainant was told that her case was put in MIG (Middle Income Group) category due to which subsidy had been halted, which had ended on 31st March, 2021. Regarding this the complainant sent e-mail to the opposite party and customer cares frequently and also talked via phone but the complainant did not receive any responsible answer that why did the opposite party put her case in Middle Income Group (MIG) whenever the income of the complainant and he family was less than Rs.3 lakh. The complainant visited PMAY website, where the complainant was told that her subsidy process had not been received by them through her bank so the complainant need to contact her banker. Since the opposite party had not processed her documents further to Central Nodal Agency then how can the opposite party decide that the customer belongs to LIG category or MIG category. When the complainant talked to the bank manager on 14.03.2022 then she was told to contact the Noida IIFL Bank. When the complainant talked Noida IIFL Bank, she was told that she was in the MIG category and she would not get the subsidy. But the complainant was told tha tshe was in MIG category and she would not get the subsidy. But the complainant was told why it was so. Even after providing all the necessary documents related to the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana to the Bank and also giving complete description of income that she belongs to lower income group category, but the bank did mistake in filling her PM Awas Yojana application form and shown her in the Middle Income Group Category. The income of the complainant and her family was less than Rs.3 lakh, whose copy was attached with the file and fulfill all criteria of PMAY subsidy, so the complainant was under LIG (Lower Income Group) Category. The bank had not forwarded subsidy claim of the complainant, further which the 2nd step of PMAY by bank and the subsidy process of the complainant had been stopped by the bank. On behalf of Govt. criteria, the complainant belongs to LIG category under which the complainant had full right to claim over the above mentioned subsidy amount of Rs.2,67,0009/- approx. and which must be provided by the bank to the complainant. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:
a) pay the subsidy amount to the complainant to the tune of Rs.2,67,000/- with the bank alongwith interest from 18th January, 2021 till its realization.
b) pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses
2. Notice issued to opposite party received back with the report of “Refusal”. Case called several times since morning but none has appeared on behalf of opposite party. Hence, opposite party was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 21.10.2022.
3. The complainant led evidence in support of his respective version.
4 We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record on the file.
5. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite party– India Infoline finance Limited. with the prayer to: a) pay the subsidy amount to the complainant to the tune of Rs.2,67,000/- with the bank alongwith interest from 18th January, 2021 till its realization. b) pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case, the complainant has led in his evidence Ex.PW1/A – affidavit of Hemlata Aggarwal,, Ex.P-1 – adhaar card, Ex.P-2- Final Sanction letter, Ex.P-3 (colly) – User Manual, Ex.P-4 (colly) – Sale deed, Ex.P-5 – receipt of Citizen Resource Information, Ex.P-7 ( colly) – affidavit cum undertaking PMAY(Urban), Ex.P-8 (Colly) – email.
6. There is nothing on record to disbelieve and discredit the aforesaid ex-parte evidence of the complainant. Since opposite party has not come present to contest the claim of the complainant, therefore, the allegations made in complaint by the complainant go unrebutted. From the aforesaid ex-parte evidence it is amply proved that opposite party has rendered deficient services to the complainant. Hence the complaint is allowed against opposite party.
7. Opposite party is directed to process the claim of the complainant as per Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (Urban) – PMAY (U) vide Ex. P-3(colly) and pay the due amount to the complainant along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till its realization. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.2200/- as compensation on account of mental tension, agony and harassment alongwith Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copy of this order be given to the parties concerned free of costs and file be consigned to record room.
Announced on: 10.02.2023 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
