Date of Filing: 26/11/2011

        Date of Order: 31/12/2011

BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE -  20

Dated:  31^st DAY OF DECEMBER 2011

PRESENT

SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO,B.Sc.,B.L., PRESIDENT

SRI.KESHAV RAO PATIL, B.COM., M.A., LL.B., PGDPR, MEMBER

C.C. NO.2148 OF 2011

Dr. D.B.Puranik,

Professor, Department of Dairy Technology,

Dairy Science College, Hebbal,

BANGALORE-560 024.

(Rep. by In person)                                                            ….  Complainant.

V/s

(1) Shri.Vidyadhar,

Branch Manager,

LIC Housing Finance Limited,

Lamington Road,

HUBLI-580 020.

(2) Branch Manager,

LIC Housing Finance Limited,

No.15/1, HAYES CENTRE,

Hayes Road, Bangalore-25.

(Rep. by Sri.G.M.Gajendran, Advocate)                                …. Opposite Parties.

BY SRI. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT

-: ORDER:-

The brief antecedents that led to the filing of the complainant U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking direction to the Opposite Parties to pay the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- compensation and direction to the opposite parties to release, disburse the loan of Rs.4,43,000/- to the complainant, are necessary:-

The complainant had applied for a housing loan with the opposite parties through the 1^st opposite party after paying Rs.1,100/- as advance towards processing the application charges out of Rs.3,430/-.  The opposite parties sanctioned Rs.4,43,000/- towards housing loan.  The complainant went to the 1^st opposite party on 23.02.2011 submitted Rs.20/- stamp paper, record of Rights or Utara/Pahani of his property and house tax receipts for the year 2010-11, Nil Encumbrance Certificate for 15 years.  Even then the opposite parties started harassing the complainant by asking him to bring Rs.100/- stamp paper to get Notary signature etc., on many things which were not informed earlier.  Hence the complainant intimated this to the opposite parties on 24.02.2011 and filed this complaint.

2.       In brief the version of the opposite parties are:-

          The complainant had already obtained/availed the housing loan of Rs.15,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- to purchase/construct the house measuring 1937.70 square feet at No.65, Brahmachaitanya Park, Sadhankeri, Dharwad, on application No.26009572 and 26009814 and is repaying the loan by EMI for a period of 10 years and he is remitting the EMI through ECS and he has rented the building.  The complainant had applied for a housing loan of Rs.4,43,000/- for the improvement/renovation of the existing building for providing and fabricating M.S. Steel for grills and gate, providing and fixing granite etc.,.  It was sanctioned on 03.02.2011 on certain terms and conditions.  Clause (12) of the Loan sanctioned letter may be read herein.  On 23.02.2011 the complainant was informed to produce Indemnity Bond, Affidavit, Tax paid receipt, Uttara patra, E.C. for 15 years and also executed loan agreement on a sum above at Rs.100/-.  The complainant started arguing with the staff and asked the staff to prepare the documents on the stamp paper and he will sign it, this is impermissible under the loan policy.  The opposite party has also written to the complainant on 03.03.2011 in this regard.  The complainant has to comply with the formalities within three months for releasing the loan, but he has not done hence the complaint be dismissed.

3.       To substantiate their respective cases, the complainant has filed his affidavit, the opposite party has submitted that his version and documents be read as its evidence.  The arguments were heard.

4.       The points that arise for our consideration are:-

:- POINTS:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service?
2. What Order?

5.       Our findings are:-

Point (A) & (B):        As per the final Order

                             for the following:- 

-:REASONS:-

Point A & B:-

6.       Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavits and documents on record, it is an admitted fact that the complainant is a customer of the opposite party, he had obtained Rs.15,00,000/- housing loan from the opposite party for the purchase and construction of the house measuring 1937.70 square feet at No.65, Brahmachaitanya Park, Sadhankeri, Dharwad for 10 years and he is remitting the EMIs through ECS and he has rented the building and recovering rent from the tenants. 

7.       Further it is an admitted fact that under the scheme Griha Prakash the complainant had made an application for further housing loan on 22.11.2010 for the purpose of improvement/renovation of the existing building for providing and fabricating M.S.Steel for grills and gate, providing and fixing granite etc.,.  The opposite party has sanctioned a loan of Rs.4,43,000/- on 10.02.2011 stating the loan will be granted on certain terms and conditions and he has to pay it back, certain processing charges etc.,.  The complainant never stated that he had complied with all the terms and conditions stated therein. 

8.       The complainant on 22.03.2011 had gone to the 2^nd opposite party and stated that he has produced the copy of the RTC, Nil encumbrance certificate, Tax paid receipt and Rs.20/- stamp paper.  This will not solve the problem of the complainant.  But the complainant started arguing with the opposite party when they demanded the indemnity bond, the affidavit the power of attorney to be get typed by the complainant and he had to notarized it.  But the complainant did not do those things, came back and wrote to the opposite parties.

9.       In this regard the opposite parties on 03.03.2011 has written thus:-

“We are forwarding herewith copy of Irrevocable Power of Attorney (IPA) and affidavit cum undertaking.

The matter of Irrevocable Power of Attorney is to be typed on Rs.100 bond paper (first paragraph of the IPA is sufficient in the bond paper).  The typed bond to be attached with the copy of IPA given and the pages to be signed and all the pages to be notarized including bond paper.

The matter in affidavit-cum-undertaking to be fully typed on Rs.20/- bond paper and to be signed and notarized.

Along with the above papers please send the photographs of the property (Renovation work done), up-to-date encumbrance certificate for 15 years and a cheque for balance fees.”

That means the opposite party wanted the irrevocable power of attorney and Indemnity Bond to be typed on 100 rupees stamp paper it has to be typed with the copy of the IPA and each page has to be signed and attested before the notary.  The affidavit-cum-undertaking is to be fully typed on 20 rupees bond paper it has to be notarized and the complainant had to submit the photographs of the property along with the up to date encumbrance certificate and the cheque for the balance fee.  This has not been complied with by the complainant admittedly.  When that is the case how can the complainant say there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  There is no answer. 

10.     Merely the opposite parties have sanctioned the loan, it does not mean the opposite party had to disburse the loan without insisting on anything sanctioning and by disbursed the loan is the prerogative that cannot be questioned before this forum as a deficiency in service.  If the complainant had complied with all the terms and conditions of the loan as prescribed by the Bank and if the opposite party had not released the money then the complainant would have approached the appropriate civil court regarding proper relief. 

11.     In this case the complainant has not paid any amount for purchasing any service from the opposite party.  Here the opposite party has to give money to the complainant as loan.  If that is not given the complainant cannot question the propriety of the opposite party in not disbursing the loan.

12.     This order will not come in the way if the complainant complying with the mandates of the letter dated: 03.03.2011 of the opposite party and requesting them to release the money and the opposite party releasing the money.  Under these circumstances there is no question of any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is there.  Hence we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

1.       The complaint is Dismissed.  No order as to costs. 

2.       Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.

3.       Send a copy of this order to both the parties free of costs, immediately.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 31^st Day of December 2011)

     MEMBER                                                         PRESIDENT