D.O.F:17/03/2018
D.O.O:20/01/2022
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.No.46/2018
Dated this, the 20th day of January 2022
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Babu.K
S/o Kunhiraman. V
Kizhakkumkara House
Nanbidipallam
Thekkil Village, Chengala Via,Kasaragod : Complainant
(Adv: Jayanth Lal.M)
And
1. Manager
H.D.F.C Ltd,
II nd Floor, Safari Palace,
Opp.Vyapara Bhavan, Main road
Kanhangad, Kasaragod
2. Roopesh
Engineer
IInd Floor, Safari Palace
Opp. Vyapara Bhavan, Main Road
Kanhangad, Kasaragod : Opposite Parties
3. Chandrashekhar
Mannipady, Sales Executive
II nd Floor, Safari Palace,
Opp. Vyapara Bhavan
Main Road Kanhangad, Kasaragod
(Adv: A. Radhakrishnan)
ORDER
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
This complaint is filed by complainant with the allegation that he approached Opposite Party No: 1 for housing loan on 02/10/2017 for which, title deeds were produced, verified by the same; the engineer of the bank inspected the property. But on 05/03/2018 Opposite Party informed the complainant that the loan cannot be sanctioned, since there is no road approach to the property in which house is to be constructed. The grievance of the complainant is that his dream for house could not be completed, he spent so much of money and effort to process the loan, he suffered mental tension, suffered financial loss and thus claimed Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest and cost of litigation.
2. The Opposite Party filed its written version, raising the contention that complainant is a police officer, well educated, he has pending department housing loan with the bank, and he needed additional housing loan, submitted loan application on 16/09/2017. It was sent to Kochi office for processing. Housing loan is sanctioned on 30/09/2017, bank informed him during process that disbursal of loan is subject to property is having a motorable road approach with supporting legal documents. Office letter was sent, latter title deeds sent for legal opinion. But legal officer sent the letter as there is no road to the property, we can found only if there is documented motorable way to the property.
The Opposite Party further says even as per copies of the title deeds of property does not have road access and no road in any boundary. Officials of HDFC inspected the property and confirmed no road to the property. Opposite Party waited till March 2018 informed its rejection with reasons. There is no deficiency in service no compensation is payable and as and when requirement is met housing loan will be disbursed.
3. Complainant filed chief affidavit marked document as Ext A1 to A3. Ext A1 is approval letter by Opposite Party No:1 for house improvement loan, Ext A2 and Ext A3 form of agreement availing additional loan. For Opposite Party its manager examined as Dw1. Opposite Party filed chief affidavit and marked as document Ext B1, the loan application dated 16/09/2017.
4. In view of disputes aforesaid following points arise for consideration in the above case.
a) Whether there is any deficiency in service of Opposite Party in not disbursing the sanctioned housing loan amount?
b) Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation? If so for what reliefs?
5. In this case the admitted fact is that complainant is a Police Officer. He has already availed departmental loan from the bank. He applied for additional housing loan by mortgaging of his property. His title deeds were produced and verified by the bank authorities. Engineer deputed for site inspection, Engineer visited the property and submitted his report. Thereafter his application is sent to banks Kochi office. Loan is sanctioned and sanction letter is issued to the complainant evidenced by Ext B1. Kochi office took exception that property has no road access as per title deeds. So Bank informed it orally followed by issuing letter but not produced in the case.
6. According to Bank authorities loan is not disbursed in the case because property has no road access as per documentation. It is evident even by a mere perusal of title deeds as per version and evidence of Dw -1 that the sanction letter is issued after site inspection, verification of title deeds. Opposite Party contents that sanction letter is issued only after verification of title deed and after spot inspection. Opposite Party further says that there is no road access to the property and sanction of loan is subject to satisfying conditions. Opposite Party also produced 2013 (4) CPR (NC) 820 and 1995 (1) CPJ 171. Both decisions are not applicable to the present case. It refers to an instance where loan not sanctioned claim for refund of amount spent for processing. Complainant is not entitled. For relief as there is no deficiency in service. Another decision where loan application rejected incurred expenditure for process not entitled to relief as there is no deficiency in service in not disbursing of sanctioned loan for technical reasons, not against loan rejection letter.
7. Let us now consider issue No: 1 and 2 together for convenience. Case of Opposite Party bank is that even a mere perusal of title deeds show that there is no road access to the property, further no documentation for having a road access. Further bank engineer conducted spot inspection and only thereafter loan is sanctioned subject to condition therein subject to conditions therein. Complainant submitted that as he was in need of housing finance he contacted Opposite Party for housing loan. He had shown document of property even initially verified by bank and found correct. It was shown to engineer on visit also. The Opposite Party agreed to give housing loan and finally sent sanction loan and thereafter loan amount is not disbursed yet.
8. On perusal of record and evidence made available it has become clear that as complainant was in need of housing loan he contacted the Opposite Party with his title deeds, it was verified ; Even as per evidence bank Manager Dw1 admits that all procedures of inspection, verification of title deeds taken place firstly prior to sanction letter and after sanction letter there is no further verification of title deeds or spot inspection. In this case all formalities for grant of housing loan are completed and finally but yet loan is not disbursed for reason no road access. If really more verification of documents disclosed non- availability of road access in this case, bank authorities, manger and even engineer who visited the site should have rejected the loan request financing that properly has no road access. There is no need further promise of housing loan and finally no need to prolong it and finally issue loan sanction letter. Thus non- disbursement after sanctioning letter is really a deficiency in service of the Opposite Party.
Thus we find that as and when title deeds are verified Opposite Party came to know that the property has no road access as per documents and that instead of rejecting loan application on that ground then and there. Bank issued sanction letter and there after finaly informed the party of the decision that no loan can be sanctioned. Under such circumstances. We are of the opinion that there was deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No:1 to the complainant and hence complainant is entitled to get compensation from Opposite Party No:1 along with cost of litigation. We find that an amount of Rs. 25,000/- will be the reasonable compensation under the circumstances. Since no evidence is adduced to prove actual financial loss or damages.
In the result complaint is allowed in part Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty Five thousand only) as compensation as to the complainant along with Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as cost of litigation within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of order.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Document issued by HDFC bank Ltd Dt: 02/10/2017
A2 & A3- Agreement copy
B1- Loan application
Witness Examined
Pw1- Babu.K
Dw1- Arjun Raj
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Senior Superintendent
Ps/
