O R D E R
K.S. MOHI, PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.P u/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant had booked a residential flat with M/s SRS Real Estate Ltd. in their group housing project named “SRS Pearl” at Sector-87, Faridabad by making initial payment of Rs.12.50 lacs to them as against the total cost of Rs.32 lacs for the payment of the balance amount the complainant had to avail some house loan. It is alleged that on 01.11.2010 the complainant approached the O.P and applied for a housing loan of Rs.16 lacs from the O.P. It is further alleged that after completing all the necessary formalities as per the requirements of the O.P and the O.P while taking considerable delay approved and sanctioned a loan of Rs.10 lacs under Griha Prakash Scheme vide their letter dated 29.03.2011 and that too by imposing two special additional conditions such as (a) one Govt. guarantor and (b) assignment of LIC policies worth Rs.2 lacs. It is alleged that the complainant after getting the loan sanctioned and as per the requirement and demand of the O.P submitted all the documents to the O.P vide his letter dated 16.05.2011. It is further alleged that the cheque of Rs.9,927/- given to the O.P towards upfront fee was duly credited in their account on 30.05.2011. It is alleged that the complainant was unable to fulfill the two special additional conditions as mentioned in the complaint as the same were imposed later on by the O.P and about which he was never apprised and he requested the O.P to waive the same but the O.P vide their email dated 03.08.2011 informed the complainant that since the competent authority did not waive those special conditions they refused to further process the loan and also stated that no original documents related to the loan were in their custody and that the process fee, upfront fee etc. were non-refundable. It is further alleged that the complainant after receiving the aforesaid email from the O.P offered to assign LIC Policy worth Rs.5 lacs and also asked them to pledge the booked flat with the O.P but the O.P did never agree for the same and rejected the loan already sanctioned by them. It is alleged that the complainant thereafter was constrained to demand refund of Rs.11,927/- paid to them towards upfront fee, processing charges and expenses for stamp duty and notary and also asked for the return of all the original documents. It is further alleged that despite various request and sent reminders and also personal visits to the O.P but all in vain. It is alleged that complainant also sent a legal notice dated 21.10.2011 to the O.P but to no avail. On these facts complainant prays that O.P be directed to pay the sum of Rs.11,927/- alongwith interest @ 24%p.a., apart from cost and compensation as claimed.
2. O.P appeared and filed the written statement. In its written statement OP has not been disputed that complainant had applied for housing loan. It is alleged that the O.P had sanctioned a loan of Rs.15.30 lacs and at the time complainant did not avail the loan with the reason that the builder was not giving allotment of flat and after that complainant again submitted the application with the another branch of answering O.P at Asaf Ali Road with certain income proof and other documents and answering O.P has considered complainant’s documents but the loan demanded by complainant was not viable due to his income as there was difference of income when the loan was approved by the Janakpuri Branch and the loan applied with Asaf Ali Branch. It is further alleged that O.P has regretted complainant’s application that the loan could not be sanctioned or disbursed but complainant had sent number of complaints to higher officials of O.P and they have perused the record and they have not found the sanction of loan viable. It is alleged that on the basis of documents submitted by complainant it has been clarified that the sanction of earlier loan was valid for only 3 months and the fresh documents submitted by the complainant had nothing to do with the previous sanction of the loan by answering O.P. It is further alleged that complainant has again sent complaints to higher officials of answering O.P and keeping in view the sympathy to complainant answering O.P has sanctioned a loan of Rs.10 lacs with the condition the borrower (complainant) shall provide the guarantee of government employee but despite the sanctioned letter complainant did not fulfill the condition and therefore the loan could not be disbursed due to the non-fulfillment of the condition imposed at the time of sanctioning the loan by the higher official. It is alleged that though the processing fee as per the terms and conditions of loan application is not refundable but answering O.P as a special case has refunded a sum of Rs.4,800/- vide cheque which has been sent to complainant by speed post. It is further alleged that the condition of non-refundable processing fee is written in the application form and the same has been read and understood by the complainant. Dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
3. Complainant has filed his affidavit in evidence testifying all the facts has alleged in the complaint. On the other hand Mr. K. Jayanthi, Area Manager of O.P has filed affidavit in evidence reiterating all the facts as alleged in the written statement. Both parties have already filed their written submissions.
4. We have carefully gone through the record of the case and also heard submissions of Ld. Counsels for the parties.
5. The main controversy in this case is as to whether the complainant is entitled to the refund of up-front fee, processing charges. The counsel for complainant during the course of argument also submitted that he is entitled to the return of original documents submitted to O.P for the purpose of obtaining non-facility. However, the counsel for complainant was confronted with the prayer clause which does not find mention about return of original documents. Therefore, the relief not specifically sought by the complainant cannot be granted by the forum. So far as refund of process fee is concerned, the counsel for complainant referred to case title C.L. Khanna Vs. Dena Bank IV (2005) CPJ 137 NC which infect relates to the return of documents. As stated above the relief of refund of process fee shall only be looked into in the present complaint which is specifically sought by the complainant. It needs to be clarified that the process fee cannot be ordered to be refunded because the processing fee and administrative charge are spent by the financial institution by paying it to different agencies for processing the loan application as well as to verify his credentials. Thus such processing fee is not part and parcel of the loan amount.
6. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the discussion stated above, we are of the view that there is absolutely no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. Complaint is, therefore, dismissed.
Copy of the order be sent to the parties as per rules.
Announced this 30th day of April, 2016.
(K.S. MOHI) (SUBHASH GUPTA) (SHAHINA)
President Member Member
