SMT. MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER
This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 for an order directing the opposite party to pay Rs.6,00,000/- to the complainant as spent by her as per the instruction of opposite party to complete the foundation work of the house and to pay Rs.2 lakhs as compensation for mental agony along with Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant for the deficiency of service on his part.
The case of the complainant in brief
The complainant had approached OP for availing a housing loan on 12/02/2018 and she submitted all relevant documents. Then the OP sanctioned the housing loan for an amount of Rs.14,85,000/- and the message send through mobile phone and the OP received an amount of Rs.8,900/- as service charge. There after the complainant had completed the foundation work and other work of the house prior to the disbursement of loan as instructed by the OP by spending an amount of Rs.6,00,000/-. The complainant had started the work only on the assurance of OP. But thereafter the OP informed the complainant that they will not disburse the loan amount. The complainant produce the title deed of the property is a decree and judgment obtained from the court. The OP rejected the loan and the legal appraiser of the OP stated that they could not disburse the loan on the title documents produced before them. Since the decree and judgment obtained from a count of law. The reason for the rejection was that the person intending to avail loan can take number of certified copies of the decree from the court and which will cause multiplicity of mortgages. Moreover the sanction and disbursement of loan is 2 stages and the 1st stage is that the sanction of the loan and 2nd stage is the satisfaction of legal scrutiny. The complainant states that he OP approved the housing loan and she started the foundation and other works of the house. She also submits that she had leveled the land, completed the work of well including the connection of motor with temporary electric connection by spending an amount of Rs.6 lakhs. The complainant also approached the higher officials of OP at Kochi also. The regional office of OP also rejected the loan of the complainant. There after 3 months the OP refund the processing charge of Rs.8,900/- already collected by the complainant. The act of OP the complainant caused much mental agony and financial loss. So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Hence the complaint.
After receiving notice OP appeared before the commission and filed his written version contending that the complainant has not made co-applicant of the loan Vybhav Krishnakumar a necessary party to the complaint. As per the loan application the complainant along with her son Vybhav Krishankumar has applied for the said loan from this OP. He was working as assistant manager with Muthoot Finance Ltd. Once the loan application is received by the OP, the file will be sent to the credit processing Hub of the OP situated at their Regional office at Ernakulam. After assessing the income documents of complainant’s son an amount of Rs.14,85,000/- was sanctioned and Rs.8,900/- received as process fee. There after the complainant came to the OP’s office and submitted the legal documents for scrutiny of the loan. The legal appraiser of the OP informed the complainant that they could not disburse the loan based on the title documents shown to them. The title document of the complainant was a court decree because the parties to the decree can take any number of certified copies of decree from the court and hence they could take multiple loans from any number of banks based on such document. Hence the legal appraiser of OP advised the complainant to execute a settlement deed in favour of her son who is also a co-applicant to the loan. But the complainant was not amenable and she demanding the loan based on certified copy of decree received from the court. But the OP rejected the loan application and refund the process fee Rs.8,900/- to complainant. Moreover the OP submits that OP have lost their valuable manpower for processing the loan application, scrutiny of legal documents, technical site inspection charges and that due to the adamant attitude of the complainant for not submitted the original documents. This OP has not violated the guidelines issued by RBI. The OP has no legal responsibility to pay any amount to complainant. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP. The complainant is not entitled for any type of compensation or damage as stated in the complaint. Hence the complaint may dismissed.
On the basis of the rival contentions by the pleadings the following issues were framed for consideration.
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of OP?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?
- Relief and cost?
The evidence consists of the oral testimony of Pw1 and Ext. A1 to A8 marked. On OP’s side Dw1 was examined and no documents marked.
Issue No.1 to 3 together
The complainant adduced evidence before the commission by submitting her chief affidavit in lieu of her chief examination to the tune of the pleadings in the complaint and denying the contentions in the version. The documents Ext.A1 to A8 were marked. The documents Ext.A1 to A3 are the messages send by OP to complainant with regards to the complainant’s home loan application. In Ext.A4 is the receipt of documents issued by OP to the complainant which were already submitted by the complainant along with the loan application. In Ext.A5 is the receipt received by the complainant regarding the processing fee of Rs.8,900/-. In the evidence of Pw1 who clearly stated that “ഈ കേസുമായി ബന്ധപ്പെട്ട ലോണിലെ co-obligant എെൻറ മകൻ Vybhav Krishnakumar ആണ്. Vybhav Krishnakumar െൻറ വരുമാനത്തിന് അടിസ്ഥാനമാക്കിയാണ് ലോണിന് അപേക്ഷിച്ചത്. അതുകൊണ്ട്തന്നെ OP യുടെ ഉത്തരത്തിൽ കൃഷ്ണകുമാറിനെ കക്ഷി ചേർക്കണമെന്ന് പറഞ്ഞിട്ടുണ്ട്? ഞാൻ മനസ്സിലാക്കിയിട്ടില്ല. The OP’s legal department advised the complainant to execute a settlement deed in favour of Vybhav Krishankumar who is a co-applicant to the loan. But the complainant is not amenable to do the same. Moreover she deposed that OP സ്ഥാപനത്തിൽ ലോണിന് പോകുന്നതിന് മുൻപ് ഞാൻ SBI-ൽ പോയിരുന്നു. SBI ലോൺ തന്നില്ല. എെൻറ title deed കോടതിയിൽ നിന്ന് എടുത്ത decree certified copy ആയതുകൊണ്ട് ലോൺ തരാൻ പറ്റില്ല എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞു. കോടതിയിൽ നിന്നുള്ള ഡീഡിന് പകരം രജിസ്റ്റർ ഓഫീസിൽ നിന്നുള്ള title deed കൊണ്ടുവന്നാൽ ലോൺ തരാമെന്ന് OP പറഞ്ഞു. OP സ്ഥാപനം പറയുന്നതുപോലെ എനിക്ക് ചെയ്യാൻ സാധിക്കില്ല. Moreover she deposed that processing fee എനിക്ക് തിരിച്ചുകിട്ടി.
On OP’s side OP No.1 present and examined as Dw1 and he deposed that sanction letter ൽ Subject to legal and technical clearance of property എന്ന് Mention ചെയ്തിട്ടുണ്ടാകും. ഇതു കഴിഞ്ഞ് Legal ആയോ Technical ആയോ Rejection വന്നാൽ Loan കൊടുക്കില്ല. ഇതിനിടയിൽ Processing fees വാങ്ങും. Loan reject ആയാൽ Processing fee തിരിച്ച് നൽകും. എല്ലാ Customers നും Automatic message ആണ് പോകാറ്. Individual ആയി Message അയക്കാറില്ല. ആദ്യം വരുമാന സംബന്ധമായ രേഖകളാണ് തന്നത്. പിന്നീട് ഭൂമി സംബന്ധമായ രേഖകൾ തന്നിരുന്നു. അപ്പോൾ തന്നെ Loan തരാൻ പറ്റില്ല എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞിരുന്നു. The complainant has not produced any document or expert evidence to prove that she completed the foundation work and other work of the house prior to the disbursement of the loan by spending an amount of Rs.6 lakhs. In this case the complainant is not to fulfill the legal scrutiny of the sufficient documents. So it is clear that there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of OP.
As discussed above the complainant has not proved the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against OP. Thus the issue 1 to 3 found against the complainant.
In the result the complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost and compensation
Exts.
A1 to A3- Copy of message through mobile phone
A4-Receipt received from HDFC in connection with document
A5-Receipt received from HDFC in connection with cash
A6- Certificate of village officer
A7- Certificate of Panchayat member
A8- CD with affidavit (marked with objection)
Pw1-Complainant
Dw1-OP
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
(mnp)
/Forward by order/
Assistant Registrar
