SRI BIJOY KUMAR DAS,PRESIDENT:-

                        Deficiency in service in respect of Non-disbursement of sanctioned loan amount are the allegations arrayed against the Opp. Parties.

2.                     Complaint, in a nutshell reveals that, Complainants are spouse and in order to maintain their livelihood and to setup a electrical Unit, Complainant No.1 applied before Ops for a loan amounting of Rs. 10 Lakhs and the loan application is registered as KPD-41. Complainants on the instruction of Ops submitted the required documents and deposited Rs. 13,218/- on different dates towards fees for processing of the loan amount. Accordingly, Ops sanctioned a loan amounting of Rs. 1,80,000/- on dt. 19/06/2018 in favour of the complainant which has to be repaid on 60 monthly installments @Rs. 7800/- per month. It is revealed from the complaint that on the instruction of Ops a registered mortgaged of the property(as per schedule of the complaint) was created on dt. 04.07.2018 and the said mortgage deed was rectified on dt. 24.07.2018 (Annexure-O) as error in the earlier execution of mortgage deed dtd. 04.07.2018. It is also alleged that complainants has incurred Rs. 15825/- towards expenditure of creating mortgage deed and expenditure of Rs. 5000/- towards availing the Encumbancy Certificate and other charges. It is further alleged that, though complainants have sincerely submitted all the documents, complied all the legal and official formalities, the Ops without any ‘valid reason did not disburse the sanctioned loan amount, being aggrieved complainant’s issued an Advocate’s Notice on 13.08.2018 by Regd. Post with A.D., but all went invain, hence the complaint before the Forum. In the complaint, it is prayed that, the Acts of the Ops caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainants and such acts be treated as deficiency in service and Unfair Trade Practice. Complainants have prayed a number of reliefs before this Forum and sought direction to Ops for refund of Rs. 36,143/-, return of all the documents received from complainant No.1 on dt. 27.02.2018, also needs further direction to re convey the schedule property U/S 60 of T.P.Act at their own cost and to return the post-dated cheques deposited before the Ops. It is further prayed that an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs be awarded in favour of the complainant’s for financial loss, compensation for mental agony alongwith cost of litigation.                                                                 

3.                     On receipt of the Notice Ops appeared through their Ld. Counsel Mr. S.C.Rout and field written statement into the dispute flatly denying the allegations in the parawise replies and submitting the facts, it is averred that, Ops is a Non-Banking Finance Company registered under RBI and financial solutions provider operates throughout the country. It is also averred that complainant No.1 had approached Op-Company for availing a finance for his business and deposited Rs. 3658/-. As the complainant No.1 had submitted the Xerox copy of the title deeds inplace of original title deed for creating valid mortgage deed of the property, so the Company could not disburse the loan amount. It is also averred that complainants are not ‘consumer’ U/S 2 (d) of C.P.Act and no deficiency in service or Unfair Trade Practice has been committed by this Ops and complainants are not entitled to any relief and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.

4.                        Heard the Ld. Counsels appearing for the parties perused the documents filed into the dispute. Complainants to substantiate their case filed a volume of attested copies of documents marked as Annexure-A to O as described in the complaint, also another documents filed on dt. 28.03.2019  by the complainants as per the list and the copy is duely received by Ld. Counsel for Ops. No documents filed on behalf of the Ops. It is an admitted fact that, Complainant No.1, Anu Charan Pal applied before Op-Finance Company to avail a loan and deposited fees of Rs. 3658/-. It is also admitted that the loan applied for was not disbursed to complainant-prospective loanee. The facts reveals from the documents presented by complainants that a loan amounting of Rs. 1,80,000/- was sanctioned in favour of complainants by the Ops (Annexure-E), on completion of legal opinion and other official formalities. It is also a fact that the property of the complainants as per the schedule is created as Registered Mortgage on dt. 04.07.2018 and rectified Mortgaged dtd. 24.07.2018 (Annexure-N).  The schedule of property as per the registered mortgage described as Area-ac 0.0250 dec, Khata  No. 259/149, Plot No. 324, Kisam-Sarad II, Mouza-Kansar, Tahasil- Mokalapada, Thana No. 95, Dist- Kendrapara  . Ops have challenged the maintainability of the Complaiannt stating that, the complainants can’t be treated as a consumer under Sec 2 (d) of C.P.Act. In this aspect, we are of the opinion that when admittedly the complainant has deposited a consideration amount of Rs. 3658/- before the Ops to avail the service, hence the complainant is a ‘consumer’ as defined on the section 2 (d) of the C.P.Act,1986.

                        Ops countering the allegation of deficiency in service cites a solitary ground for non-disbursement of loan amount, here we quote “The Complainant No.1 has submitted the Xerox copy of the title deeds but he did not submitted original title deeds for creating a valid mortgage deed of property”. It is the case of the Ops that as complainant did not file the original title deeds for creating mortgage, loan amount could not be disbursed. On perusal of Annexure-N, the rectified mortgage deed dt. 24.07.2018, which bears the signature of the complainants, OpNo.3 Branch Manager, BELL FINVEST India Pvt. Ltd. alongwith the official seal and signature of the Registering Authority, Marshaghai. Hence, it is clear that, the process of Mortgage of scheduled property is completed in all respect, and Ops have taken a false stand to defend their case as the Ops have not countered the allegations substantially inspite of acknowledgement of Annexures filed into the dispute. Further, a document is filed by the complainant, on 28.03.2019, copy of the list of documents duely served on the Ops, which reveals that Ops have received the documents on 27.7.2018 which includes the  ‘Original’ mutation R.O.R dtd. 12.06.2015 recorded on the name of Anu Charan Pal in respect of Khata No. 259/149 of Mouza- Kansar alongwith the certified copy of regd. sale deed no. 10961002642 dt. 22.11.2010 of the said property. Now, it is crystal clear that Ops after receiving the original title deeds (R.O.R), certified copy of Regd. sale deed mortgaging the schedule property and sanctioning  the loan amount after completing all the formalities has unilaterally and illegally did not disburse the sanctioned loan amount in favour of the complainants-loanee, is a clear case of deficiency in service on part of the Ops for which all the Ops are jointly and severally liable for deficiency in service. If the complainant-loanee was lacking any documents related to the title deeds, Ops have never tried to intimated the complainant-loanee for furnishing the same, even after receipt of the legal Notice dt. 13.08.2018, and the Ops are legally duty-bond to intimate complainant-loanee for submission of detail titled deeds, if any.       

 Complainants have sought a number of reliefs against the Ops, as follows:-

1. Ops be directed to refund sum of Rs. 36,143/- as per the describtion in para-15 of the complaint.
2. Ops be directed to pay Rs. 3 Lakhs towards expenses incurred by the complainant for mental agony.
3. Ops be directed to return all the title documents received from complainant No.1 on dt. 27.02.2018.
4. Ops be directed to re convey the schedule property U/S of the T.P.Act at their own cost and to return  the cheques deposited before then by complainant No.1 vide A/C No. 3401217123 bearing cheque serial No. 007672 to 007678.
5.  Cost of litigation be awarded in favour of the complainants.
6. Any other relief or relief which the Forum deem fit and proper be granted in favour of Complainant.

                        Considering the prayer No.1, wherein it is prayed that a direction be given to Ops to refund Rs.36,143/- which includes deposit of different fees and expenses towards availing EC, creating Mortgage deeds and etc. On perusal of payment receipts filed by complainants, it is noticed that complainant-loanee has paid Rs. 3658/- on dt. 08.03.2018 towards log-in fee, Rs. 5900/- towards legal and valuation fees on 01.05.2018, and Rs. 3660/- on 23.05.2018 as legal and technical fees in toto Rs. 13,218/-, as per the payment receipts those deposits are non-refundable in nature. But, we are of the opinion that, when the Ops have not disburse the loan amount to the complainant-loanee for their own fault, and not for any negligence of complainants so, the non-refund condition of fees shall not be applicable to the instant case and Ops are directed to refund Rs. 13,218/- deposited on different dates to complainant No.1. Further the claim of the complainant regarding refund of balance expenditure of Rs. 22,925/- (Rs. 36,143/- - Rs.13,218/-) no payment receipts are produced by complainants to support their version, but the facts of expenses towards procuring EC and execution of mortgage deed can’t be ignored and in the absence of any payment receipts an amount of Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees Five thousand only) is expected to be incurred for the said purposes. Accordingly, Ops shall refund Rs. 18,218/-( Rs.13,218+Rs. 5,000/-) towards deposit of fees and other ancillary charges incurred for the purpose and  on point No.2 of the prayer, it is our opinion that, the claim of the complainants for award of compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs for mental agony is in a very higher side and without any substantial proof, hence we feel it proper if an amount of Rs. 15,000/-(Rs. Fifteen thousand only) is awarded in favour of the complainants same will be justified and appropriate to cover-up the financial loss and mental agony. Considering the prayers of the complainants. On prayer No.3, it is directed that Ops shall return the documents which are deposited by the complainant-customer as per the list and prayer No.4 is allowed without any modification. In addition to the above observation, on prayer No.5, Ops shall pay an amount of Rs. 2,000/-(Two thousand only) towards cost of litigation.

                    Having observations reflected above, it is directed that Ops shall refund a total amount of Rs. 35,218/-(Rs. Thirty Five thousand two hundred Eighteen only) to complainant No.1 alongwith  further direction to comply prayer No.3 & 4 as per our observations within one month of receipt of this order, failing which 9% interest will be charged on the ordered amount for the delayed period and action be initiated under the provisions of C.P.Act,1986 against the Ops for delay/non-compliance of the order so far the other directions are concerned.

                 Complaint is allowed in part on contest with cost.

               Pronounced in the open Court, this 29^st day of March-2019.

                                I, agree.

                                  Sd/-                                               Sd/-

                              MEMBER                                    PRESIDENT