DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

==================

Krishan Lal Juneja s/o Sh. Sant Ram Juneja, R/o H.No.285, Sector 33-A, Chandigarh.

                                                 ---Complainant

V E R S U S

[1]   M/s ING VYSA BANK LTD., ING VYSYA HOUSE, 22 MG Road, Bangalore.

[2]   M/s ING VYSA BANK LTD., SCO No 70-71, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

---Opposite Parties

BEFORE:          MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA                        PRESIDING MEMBER

                    SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU          MEMBER

Argued By:    Sh. Ajit Singh, Advocate for the Complainant.

Sh. Jatin Kumar, Advocate for the OPs.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.           Factually speaking, the Complainant had approached the OPs for availing a home loan of Rs.50.00 lacs. He had also submitted all requisite documents along with eight blank cheques from his own account, as well as the account of his son to the OPs, as per the required formalities for sanction of the loan. The Complainant has stated that the OPs deducted Rs.5,618/- on 15.11.2008 as processing fee and Rs.50,450/- on 27.11.2008 from his account by using the Cheques. The OPs also deducted a sum of Rs.20,678/- on 09.12.2008 by using a cheque from Complainant’s son’s account. As per the Complainant these amounts should not have been taken by the OPs. When he question the OPs, he was assured that the amounts would be re-deposited in his account, but no amounts have actually been refunded.

              The Complainant has further stated that as per Ex.C-3 (release of home loan), the OPs sanctioned a loan of Rs.49.90 lacs to him. As per this letter, a processing fee of Rs.49,900/- and service tax of Rs.6,168/- total amounting to Rs.56,068/- was deducted. The monthly EMI was shown as Rs.65,618/- starting from 08.01.2009. The Complainant has alleged that till the date of sanction of loan the amounts of Rs.5,618/-, Rs.50,450/- and Rs.20,678/- total amounting to Rs.76,746/- had been deducted from his account, even though no disbursement had actually been made to him. 

              Alleging that the action of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the present complaint, praying for refund of Rs.76,476/-, along with compensation and cost of litigation.

2.           After admission of the complaint, notices were sent to the OPs.

3.           OPs in reply have taken the preliminary objection that the Complainant is guilty of suppressing material and pertinent facts relevant for the adjudication of the present complaint. The Complainant had actually approached the OPs for take over his loan from the Standard Chartered Bank. After considering the re-payment capacity of the Complainant, the OPs had sanctioned loan of Rs.50.00 lacs in respect of the loan account number with Standard Chartered Bank of the Complainant for balance transfer and has disbursed the loan on 27.11.2008 for foreclosure of the loan account with Standard Chartered Bank. The amount of Rs.56,068/- deducted was towards the loan processing fee. Further, after the disbursement of the loan, as the first EMI became due in January 2009, hence, the Complainant was required to pay pre-EMI of Rs.20678/- for the loan. The  Complainant after a lapse of one and half month of disbursement of loan, returned the cheque/ pay order prepared by the OPs favoring the loan account number of the Complainant with Standard Chartered Bank, with a request that he did not want to close his loan account with the Standard Chartered Bank. Accordingly, as per the request of the Complainant, OPs closed the loan account opened with them after receiving the pay order of Rs.50.00 lacs.

              On merits, OPs have denied receipt of any blank un-dated cheques. The Complainant had given duly filled in cheques for payment of processing fee and repayment.  The OPs have also denied that they had assured the Complainant that the processing fee would be re-deposited in his account, as the same was non-refundable.

              Relying on the above contentions and denying all other allegations of the Complainant, OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.           During he course of proceedings, OPs have moved an application under Order XLI Rule 27(1)(aa) C.P.C. for producing on record additional evidence. OPs have placed on record two statements of Standard Chartered Bank (Exhibit Ad-1) to prove that the Complainant had availed loan from another financial institution on 02.01.2009 and hence returned the cheque. OPs also placed on record a draft bearing No. 678323, dated 29.11.2008, in favour of Standard Chartered Bank Loan A/c No. 44234325, amounting to Rs.31,12,600/-, which they had handed over to the Complainant. The Complainant in reply has stated that the document is not valid as his name, address and the rate of interest as well as tenure are all wrong. Also, no amount was disbursed to the Complainant. The photocopy of the draft, referred to above, shows that Rs.31,12,600/- was disbursed to the Complainant; whereas, the statement of account shows Rs.49,00,000/- without account number. The application was allowed and the OPs were permitted to place on record the account statement.  

5.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

6.           It is evident that the Complainant had approached the OPs to avail home loan. The OPs have charged Rs.56,068/- as processing fee/ administrative charges for loan before disbursement.

7.           The OPs have also taken Rs.20,678/- towards pre-EMI. As the first EMI was to start from 08.01.2009, an installment (pre-EMI) for December, 2008, was required to be paid. This amount of Rs.20,678/- is towards this pre-EMI.  As per the version of the OPs, the loan was disbursed to the Complainant and a pay order of Rs.50.00 lacs was prepared favouring the loan account number of the Complainant with the Standard Chartered Bank, on 27.11.2008. However, the photocopy of the pay order placed on record shows a disbursement of Rs.31,12,600/-. The OPs have also stated that the Complainant had returned the cheque of Rs.50,00,000/- after 1 ½ months, after which the OPs had closed the loan account. However, the OPs have not placed on record any documentary proof to show the handing over of the pay order of Rs.50.00 lacs or Rs.31,12,600/- to the Complainant. They have also not placed on record a copy of the pay order of Rs.50.00 lacs issued to the Complainant. It is evident that they have sanctioned the loan but have not made any disbursement to the Complainant for reasons best known to them.

8.           The learned counsel for the Complainant placed on record judgment of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in the case Jagmohan Lal Mohan Vs. ICICI Home Finance Company Limited & Ors., reported as 2010(3) CLT 588, wherein the Hon’ble National Commission has held as under:-

“Since the Petitioner has been unduly harassed, after sanction loan the same was not disbursed and Petitioner forced to approach another Bank to get the loan and incur additional expenses – Respondents directed to pay in addition to what has been awarded by the Fora below a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the Petitioner by way of compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to him.”   

In the instant case also, it is evident from the documents placed on record by the OPs along with the application that the Complainant has availed of loan from another financial institution as he had not received the amount from the OPs even though the loan had been sanctioned.

9.           Considering the entire material placed on record, as also relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal commission, given above, we allow this complaint, with a direction to the OPs to refund the Complainant the amount of Rs.56,058/- received by them as processing charges and Rs.20,678/- towards pre-EMI. The OPs will also pay Rs.5,000/- to the Complainant towards costs of litigation.

10.         The aforesaid amount be paid by the OPs within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, they would be liable to pay the aforesaid amount, along with interest @ 12% p.a., from the date of collection, till the date of refund, besides paying Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation. 

11.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

03^rd January, 2012.                                                       

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

PRESIDING EMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER