BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the day of 21st day of October 2011
Filed on : 10/05/2011
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No. 233/2011
Between
Vincent Varghese, : Complainant
Arackal house, (By Adv. Tom Joseph, Court
Vazhakkulam P.O., Road, Muvattupuzha)
Muvattupuzha.
And
Manager, : Opposite party
Ernakulam District Co-operative (By Adv. Abraham K. John)
Bank Ltd., Vazhakkulam Branch, Patel Complex, Market road,
Vazhakkulam P.O., Muvattupuzha. Cochin-31)
O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant approached the opposite party for availing financial assistance to the tune of Rs. 8,00,000/- in connection with a job offer received by his daughter. The opposite party after inspecting the house and property of the complainant agreed to provide the loan to the complainant by mortgaging the property of the complainant. Thereafter the complainant collected a loan application from the opposite party by remitting Rs. 100/- towards the application fee. The title deed of the property was submitted before the opposite party for perusing it. The opposite party had collected
Rs. 3,156/- towards valuation charges and Traveling allowance. But no valuation or legal scrutiny was done by them. The complainant brought the opposite party to his house by hiring a taxi. While so after 2 months, the opposite party informed the complainant that they can disburse only Rs. 6,00,000/-. The complainant refused the said offer since he was in need of Rs. 8,00,000/-. In the meanwhile, the complainant approached the opposite party seeking refund of Rs. 3,156/- collected from him on various heads even though no such expenses were incurred by the opposite party. But they refused to do so. The above said act of the opposite party in refusing the refund of Rs. 3,156/- amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant is entitled for the refund of Rs. 3,156/- unnecessarily collected from him by the opposite party along with interest and costs of the proceedings. This complaint hence.
2.Version of the opposite party.
The complainant submitted a loan application dated 17-12-2010 for Rs. 8,00,000/-. The reason stated in the application was for discharging his debt and to sent his daughter abroad for employment. The complainant is a lorry driver. The prime consideration in sanctioning the loan is the repaying capacity of the applicant. The opposite party collected a sum of Rs. 3,156/- towards legal fees, property valuation, service charge and traveling expenses. Considering all the aspects the branch manager concerned recommended for sanctioning to maximum limit of Rs. 6,00,000/-.
6. Accordingly the loan was sanctioned by the bank on 11-01-2011. However the complainant refused to accept the loan. Thereafter at the request of the complainant all the documents were returned to the complainant. The complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs as sought for.
3. No oral evidence was adduced by the parties. Exts. A1 and B1 to B5 were marked on the side of the complainant and the opposite party respectively. Heard the counsel for the parties.
4. The point that arose for consideration are as follows:
i. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs. 3,156/-?
ii. Costs of the proceedings
5. Points Nos. i&ii. Chronological events in this case are as follows:
i. The complainant submitted Ext. B1 loan application for Rs. 8,00,000/- on 17-12-2010.
ii. The complainant remitted Rs.3,156/- before the opposite party on 20-12-2010 evidenced by Ext. A1 receipt.
iii. The opposite party obtained legal opinion and title report regarding scrutiny of title deed evident from Ext. B2.
iv. The opposite party prepared a property inspection valuation and valuation report dated 23-12-2010 by Ext. B3.
v. The opposite party sent Ext. B4 letter dated 11-01-2011 intimating the complainant about the sanctioning of loan to the tune of Rs. 6,00,000/-.
vi. The complainant submitted Ext. B5 letter dated 14-01-2011 before opposite party stating that he has no interest in pursuing the loan application further since he has availed loan from elsewhere.
vii. The complainant received back the documents from the opposite parties.
6. According to the complainant the opposite party did not expend any amount to process the loan application and he is entitled to get refund of the amounts paid under Ext. A1. On the contrary the opposite party categorically mentioned the expenditure of the amounts as per Ext. A1 which is as follows:
i. legal fees : Rs. 850/-
ii. valuation fees : Rs. 2,000/-
iii. Service charge : Rs. 206/-
iv. Travelling expense : Rs. 100/-
-------------------
: Rs. 3,156/-
===========
7. Considering the repayment capacity of the complainant and the valuation of the property the Bank sanctioned Rs. 6,00,000/-as against the request for Rs. 8,00,000/- for cogent reasons of their own. But again the complainant refused to accept the loan amount for his own reasons an evidenced by Ext. B5. Having refused to accept the loan offered by the opposite party the complainant can not now go to refuse the pecuniary consequences for which the opposite party has had to go to as per Exts. B1 to B4.
8. So the inevitable conclusion in this case is only to reject the claim of the complainant by dismissal of this complaint. Ordered accordingly. The claim of costs hence does not arise.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 21st day of October 2011
