Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

184/2008

A.L.Meena, - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Indusrial Development Bank of India Ltd and an - Opp.Party(s)

Ramamoorthi

06 Oct 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   09.04.2008

                                                                        Date of Order :   06.10.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU. M.MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B. M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT            

                  TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

             DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

 

C.C.NO.184/2008

FRIDAY THIS 6^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017

AL. Meena,

D/o. AN. Alagappan,

773, VBS Rajan Street,

Kanathur, Kovalam,

Kancheepuram District 603 112.                     .. Complainant

                                        ..Vs..

 

1. M/s. Industrial Development

Bank of India Limited,

Rep. by its Manager,

Commercial Banking SBU,

Regional Processing Unit-South,

Murugesa Naicker Complex (III Floor),

No.68, Greams Road,

Chennai 600 006.

 

2. M/s. Shyam Associates

Rep. by its Manager,

No.642, Anna Salai,

Thousand Lights,

Chennai 600 006.                                          .. Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for Complainant           :   M/s. M. Ramamoorthi & another         

Counsel for opposite parties      :   Mr. R.Saravanakumar   

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

 

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as damages for deficiency of service and Rs.55,000/- towards expenses incurred in settlement deed and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the complaint.

1. The averment of the complaint in brief are as follows:

         The complainant submit that she applied for a housing loan of Rs.18,00,000/- and submitted application through the 2^nd opposite party  who is the processing agent.  The complainant state that the opposite parties sanctioned  a loan of Rs.14,26,362/-.   Further the complainant state  that for due process of loan for a sum of Rs.9918/- was collected by the opposite parties on 14.11.2005.   The 1^st opposite party also obtained blank cheque for due sanction of the loan.    As per the instruction of the 1^st opposite party; the 2^nd opposite party visited the property and the complainant entered into a sale agreement Mr.A.Khaher Basha after  paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-.   Further the complainant state that the complainant’s father and mother added as Co-applicant and their property is given as security.  Thereafter the opposite parties has not released any amount as per the sanction order; even after repeated requests and demands.     Since the opposite parties have not complied the request of the complainant.     As such the act of  the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.  Hence this complaint is filed.

2.    The brief averments in Written Version of  the 1^st opposite party is  as follows:

      The 1^st opposite party deny each and every allegations except those that are specifically admitted herein.   The 1^st opposite party state that as a procedure a sanction letter has been issued to the complainant subject to the technical and legal verification of the document; loan will be sanctioned.  The opposite party has not  advance any loan to the complainant in order to process the loan and the clearance of the title deed a sum of Rs.9918/- was recovered from the complainant and only a sum of Rs.7883/- was returned to her.  The allegation entered into the contact with the opposite party is absolutely false.  The 2^nd opposite party acting as one of the agency of the 1^st opposite party  authorized Valuer’s  namely M/s. Belliappa Associates inspected the property and filed his report dated 16.11.2005.  Wherein  two queries were raised regarding the  approval of the layout of jurisdiction.  Hence the 1^st opposite party has not released any amount.  Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.     Inspite of service of notice the 2^nd opposite party is called absent and set exparte.

4.     In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as her evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 marked.  Proof affidavit of 1^st opposite party filed and Ex.B1 and Ex.B2  marked on the side of the 1^st opposite party.

5.   The points for the consideration is: 

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of  

    Rs.5,00,000/- towards damages as prayed for ?

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of

             Rs.55,000/-towards expenses incurred  for availing  

             loan as prayed for?

 

          3. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.25,000/-

              towards mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/ as prayed for ?

  

6.  POINTS 1 to 3:

        Admittedly the complainant applied for a housing loan of Rs.18,00,000/- and submitted application through the 2^nd opposite party  who is the processing agent.  The learned counsel for the complainant contended that the opposite parties sanctioned  a loan of Rs.14,26,362/- as per Ex.A1.   But on careful perusal of the document  it is very clear that the opposite parties   has not sanctioned the loan; but proposal to sanction the loan.  Further the learned counsel for the complainant contended that for due process of loan for a sum of Rs.9918/- was collected by the opposite parties on 14.11.2005.   The 1^st opposite party also obtained blank cheque for due sanction of the loan.    As per the instruction of the 1^st opposite party; the 2^nd opposite party visited the property and the complainant entered into a sale agreement Mr.A.Khaher Basha after  paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-.  But the complainant has not produced any documents to that effect.  Further the complainant contended that the complainant’s father and mother added as Co-applicant and their property is given as security.  Thereafter the opposite parties has not released any amount as per the sanction order; even after repeated requests and demands.    Hence the complainant is constrained to send letter claiming the refund of the amount and the blank cheques.  Since the opposite party has not complied the request of the complainant.  The complainant filed this case.  

7.     The contention of the opposite party is that the alleged loan sanctioned letter  is absolutely false.  As a procedure a sanction letter has been issued to the complainant subject to the technical and legal verification of the document; loan will be sanctioned.   In this case, the opposite party has not  advance any loan to the complainant in order to process the loan and the clearance of the title deed a sum of Rs.9918/- was recovered from the complainant and only a sum of Rs.7883/- was returned to her.  The allegation entered into the contact with the opposite party is absolutely false.   The complainant has not filed any such documents to prove the agreement.   The 2^nd opposite party acting as one of the agency of the 1^st opposite party  authorized Valuer’s  namely M/s. Belliappa Associates inspected the property and filed his report dated 16.11.2005.   Wherein  two queries were raised regarding the  approval of the layout of jurisdiction.   Hence the opposite party has not released any amount.  The allegation of the complainant is that blank cheque and other documents are also no longer required.  The claim of the complainant is imaginary and exorbitant.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this forum is of the considered view that since there is no clearance of the title deed regarding the jurisdiction and approval of the layout the opposite parties has not released the loan.  Equally the opposite party has returned a sum of Rs.7883/- towards the processing fee.  But the complainant has not prayed for any relief of the documents and blank cheques in this case also and the points are answered accordingly. 

        In the result the complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

            Dictated by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 6^th day  of  October  2017.  

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

 

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1- 14.11.2005         - Copy of Proceedings of the 1^st opposite party sanctioning

                               Loan.

Ex.A2- 15.11.2005         - Copy of Agreement of the complainant to purchase the

                              Property at Kanathur Reddy Kuppam.

Ex.A3- 4.4.2006    - Copy of Deed of Settlement in favour of complainant.

Ex.A4- 23.8.2006  - Copy of Representation of the complainant.

Ex.A5-         -       - Copy of Blank Cheque received by 1^st opp. party.

Ex.A6- 9.9.2006    - Copy of Proceedings of the 1^st opp. party

 

Opposite parties’ side document: -     

Ex.B1- 16.11.2005         - Copy of report of Belliappa Associates.

Ex.B2- 17.11.2005         - Copy of rejection letter of the 1^st opp. party.

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.