Date of filing: 09-11-2010
Date of order 10-02-2011
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.231 /10
Dated this, the 10th day of February 2011
PRESENT
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P. RAMADEVI : MEMBER
K.C.Abdulla,
S/o.K.P.Abdul Khader, } Complainant
Kuntar House, Po.Kuntar,
Kasaragod.
(In Person)
Manager, } Opposite party
K.F.C, M.G.Road, Kasaragod.
O R D E R
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT
The gist of the complaint is that complainant approached opposite party for a loan and the opposite party agreed to sanction the loan. Accordingly he paid `5000/- towards loan processing fee and `515/- towards service tax. It was told that if the loan is not sanctioned then the loan processing fee will be refunded. But opposite party neither sanctioned the loan nor repaid the loan processing fee. The irresponsible and careless approach of opposite party caused much financial and mental sufferings to the complainant. Hence the complaint.
2. Opposite party entered appearance through their legal officer Unnikrishnan and filed version. According to opposite party the loan is not sanctioned since the complainant failed to furnish sufficient collateral security required by the corporation for granting loan.
3. Complainant and the legal officer of opposite party heard and the documents produced by either side in perused carefully.
4. The main grievance of the complainant Abdulla is that he requested the opposite party for a preliminary inspection and examination of the project site and documents to have a preliminary idea above the feasibility of the project but it was delivered by the opposite party stating that without registration of the loan application with necessary fee and the submission of the documents mentioned in the checklist they will not take any stride to process the loan. According to the complainant had the opposite party been inspected the properties and informed their dissent then he should not have passed through the ordeal of preparing the documents mentioned in the check list by spending much time and efforts. According to him there shall be a pre registration inspection of the property to have a preliminary opinion regarding the appraisal of property for which a preliminary inspection fee can be fixed.
5. But the legal officer of the opposite party submitted that there is no such procedure and only after registration and submission of the documents mentioned in the check list they examined and verify the property.
6. We have gone through the specimen of the check list produced by the opposite party. Definitely an applicant for loan under opposite party has to spend much time and money to prepare the documents mentioned in the list. That means one whose loan application is rejected has to spare his money and time unnecessarily. Had there been a preliminary registration inspection immediately after receiving loan application, then the loanee could have take a decision whether to proceed with the project or not.
7. Therefore we direct the opposite party to make necessary changes in the loan application process and have a pre-registration inspection on receipt of loan application by collecting only half of the fee fixed for registration to form a preliminary opinion about the feasibility of the project. So that much cumbersome tardy process can be avoided if the project is not found feasible. Such procedures will lessen the work task the opposite party also.
Opposite party also directed to refund the registration fee + tax collected from the complainant i.e. `5515/- with a cost of `1000/- to the complainant. Time for compliance limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order failing which `5515/- will carry interest @ 12% from the date of complaint till payment.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/ Forwarded by Order
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
