Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 464
Instituted on : 21.09.2018
Decided on : 19.03.2024
Mahesh Gandhi son of Shri PokharDass Gandhi, resident of H. No. 171, MohallaKalan, Near Cloth Market, Sonepat.
……….………….Complainant.
Vs.
- LIC Housing Finance Ltd. Ist Floor, Narayana Complex, Chhotu Ram Chowk, Rohtakthrough its Manager.
- M/s Rakesh Chandana c/o Chandana Associates, Shop no. 6, P.P. Complex, Atias road, Sonepat (agent of LIC housing finance Ltd.).
...........……Respondents/opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh. RinkuBhatnagar Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Vipul Kapoor, Advocate for the opposite party No.1.
Sh.Sonu Sharma Advocate for opposite party No.2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that he earlier filed a similar complaint before the District consumer Forum Sonepat and the same was allowed on dated 19.08.2014. Opposite parties filed an appeal against the said order before theHon’ble State Commission and the same was allowed in absence of the counsel for the present complainant(the then respondent no.1) on dated 20.07.2016 on the ground of jurisdiction. Hence the present complaint is filed before this Commission on the ground that the complainant was in need of funds for the constriction of his house. So he met with the respondent no.2 who represented himself as agent of the opposite party No.1 and assured to complete all formalities for grant/sanction of loan. The respondent no.1 sanctioned a loan of Rs.8 lacs vide letter dated 23.6.2011 and asked the complainant to fulfil certain formalities. The complainant got approved the site plan of his property from MC Sonepat and deposited the original sale deed no.240 dated 10.5.1967, sale deed no. 669 dated 23.4.2008 and original MAP and fees of Rs.3309/- vide cheque no. 449088 dated 17.9.2011 and thereafter, the complainant requested the respondent to release the loan amount so that he can start the construction but the respondents lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other. After due delay, the respondents told that the original sale deeds and MAP deposited by the complainant were lost during transit from the area office of the respondents to its head office and the respondents in this regard got published a public notice in the newspaper Punjab Kesari on 10.10.2012 with an appeal to return the said documents to the respondent no.1 if found to anybody, after a delay of about one year. Due to non release of loan by the opposite parties, the complainant had borrowed huge amount from private persons on interest @ 24% p.a. and he had also to deposit tax of Rs.27000/- per year. Complainant suffered loss of rent value of said property for twenty months of Rs.3100/- per month as the complainant and his family members lived in a rented house. The cost of the construction has also been increased and the complainant had purchased some material in advance and has suffered a loss of Rs.40,000/-. The complainant had also spent Rs.6000/- for approval of site plan of the said property which also went in vain. The respondents never informed the complainant that the original documents deposited by the complainant were lost and lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other. The act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to return the original documents, to refund the application money of Rs.1103/- and follow up fee of Rs.3300/-alongwith interest @ 24% p.a., to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.1500000/- on account of losses explained above alongwith interest @24% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till its realisation, to pay Rs.100000/- on account of mental agony & harassment and Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party no.1 in its reply has submitted that after sanction of loan, the file containing all the original documents was sent to the Regional Office Delhi through courier on 17.9.2011 for disbursement of loan, but when the loan was not disbursed, the respondent enquired the matter from the said office and then it was revealed that the said courier has not been received by them. After that enquiry was made from courier agent and it was told by the courier agent that the said courier has been lost and DD no. 6 dated 17.10.2011 has been got recorded by the courier agent. Public notice was also published in news paper on 10.10.2012 but the complainant did not come forward to get the property transferred in favour of his wife and as such the loan amount could not be disbursed. There was no fault or negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the respondent No.1. So, the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensationand as such the dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Opposite party No.2 in its reply has submitted that no liability can be fastened against the opposite party as the opposite party No.2 is only doing his work as agent under LIC Housing Finance Ltd. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. If any liability is fastened by the Commission, then respondent no.1 is only liable for the same. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Ld. counsel for complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavits Ex.CW1/A to Ex.CW3/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C26 & Mark-A and closed his evidence on dated 12.03.2020. Ld. Counsel for opposite party No.1has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.RW1/1 to Ex.RW1/3 and closed his evidence on 08.03.2022. Ld. Counsel for opposite party No.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1, document Ex.R2 and closed his evidence on 17.02.2021.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. We have perused the documents placed on record by both the parties.Earlier the complaint was filed by the complainant before the District Forum Sonepat which was allowed on 19.08.2014 by that Commission. Thereafter the appeal was filed by the opposite party No.1 i.e. LIC Hosing Finance before the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana Panchkula and has raised the objection about territorial jurisdiction. Accordingly the Hon’ble State commission vide its order dated 20.07.2016 placed on record as ‘Mark-A’, without going into the merits of the case, has held that the District Forum Sonepat has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter. Hence the complaint was filed before this Commission having territorial jurisdiction in the matter. Ld. Counsel for the respondents has argued that after sanction of loan, the file containing all the original documents was sent to the Regional Office Delhi through courier on 17.09.2011 for disbursement of loan, but when the loan was not disbursed, the respondents enquired the matter from the said office and then it was revealed that the said courier has not been received by them and it was told by the courier agent that the said courier has been lost and DD no.6 dated 17.10.2011 has been got recorded by the courier agent. Public notice was also published in newspaper on 10.10.2012 but the complainant did not come forward to get the property transferred in favour of his wife and as such the loan amount could not be disbursed. There was no fault or negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that if the loan amount would have been disbursed to him for the construction of the house, then he would get the benefit of Rs.27000/- on account of income tax rebate. Due to non-sanction and disbursement of the loan amount and unnecessarily missing of the documents due to negligence and fault of the respondents, the construction of the house was delayed and the complainant alongwith his family has to reside in the rented house and has to pay unnecessarily a sum of Rs.62000/- as per receipt Ex. C14 and Ex.C15.In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the missing of documents which were obtained by the complainant from the concerned departments by spending huge amount. Further the concerned authority got registered the DDR Ex. RW1/2 regarding loss of the documents in question which were in the possession of the respondents or their officials. The respondents at the very belated stage got published a public notice in the newspaper on 10.10.2012 with the appeal to the general public to return the said documents if found by anybody else which is placed on record as Ex.RW1/1. So, it is clear that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the respondent No.1. Accordingly, the respondent No.1 isliable to compensate the complainant.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the respondent no.1 to pay an amount of Rs.70000/-(Rupees seventy thousands only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service for causing mental agony&harassment, to pay Rs.62000/- (Rupees sixty two thousands only) paid by the complainant as rent due to the fault and negligence on the part of the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 is further directed to make the payment of Rs.27000/-(Rupees twenty seven thousand only) on account of income tax rebate, as if the loan amount would have been disbursed to the complainant, then the complainant could have taken the benefit of income tax rebate, to make the payment of Rs.6000/-(Rupees six thousand only) for getting the site plan approved from the concerned department and Rs.4412/- (Rupees four thousands and twelve) incurred by the complainant as application money and processing fee, which has been wasted unnecessarily due todeficient services rendered by the respondents. It is also observed that due to deficiency in service on the part of respondents, the complainant had to run from pillar to post for redressal of his grievances and he spent more than 10 years in litigation. Hence the complainant is also entitled for the interest on the alleged awarded amount beside the compensation on account of deficiency in service and litigation expenses. It is, therefore, further directed that the alleged amount (Rs.70000/- + Rs.62000/- +Rs.27000/-+ Rs.6000/- +Rs.4412/-) i.e. total Rs.169412/-(Rupees one lac sixty nine thousand four hundred and twelve only) shall be paid by the respondent No.1alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the first complaint i.e.11.03.2013 till its realisation to the complainant. Opposite party No.1 is further directed to pay Rs.25000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
19.03.2024.
........................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
TriptiPannu, Member.
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
