Date of Filing 25.08.2023

                                                                                                       Date of Disposal: 28.12.2023

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, MA. ML, Ph.D (Law),                                    …….PRESIDENT

               THIRU.P.VINODH KUMAR, B.Sc., BL,                                                                           ……MEMBER-I

               THIUR.P.MURUGAN, M.Com, (ICWA), BL.,                                                                  ……MEMBER-II

CC.No.81/2023

THIS THURSDAY, THE 28^th DAY OF DECEMBER 2023

Shri.R.Varadharajan.

No.5, Kanakavallipuram Street,

Tiruvallur, Tiruvallur District – 602001.                                                ......Complainant.

                                                                        //Vs//

1.The Managing Director,

    M/s.Lending Kart finance,

    14^th floor, the first avenue,

    Besides keshavbaug party plot,

    Vastrapur, Ahmedabad – 380 015. 

2.Smt.Vaishali Sharma,

   Credit analyst,

   M/s.Lending Kart finance,

   14^th floor, the first avenue,

   Besides keshavbaug party plot,

   Vastrapur, Ahmedabad – 380 015.

3.John Anand,

    Fin max,

    No.9, Janakiraman colony Main Road,

    Arumbakkam, Chennai 106.                                                         ……Opposite parties.

Counsel for the complainant                                              : Mr.S.Rajendran, Advocate.

Counsel for the opposite parties                                       : Exparte.

This complaint coming before us on various dates and finally on 18.12.2023 in the presence of Mr.S.Rajendran, counsel for the complainant and opposite parties were set exparte for non appearance and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides this Commission delivered the following:

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY TMT.Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties with regard to non intimation of the reason for rejection of the loan sanctioned to the complainant along with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to sanction the loan amount of Rs.7,85,000/- as already sanctioned by them and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party along with litigation expenses to the complainant.

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

2. Complainant received a call from M/s. Fin Max on 29.06.2023 that they are the Direct Sales Agent for M/s. Lending Kart Finance and that they provide personal loans.  As the complainant was also in urgent requirement of money for his business he also gave all the documents required to process the loan. After receiving all the documents the 2^nd opposite party processed the application as per their norms and on 04.07.2023, the complainant received the offer letter from M/s. Lending kart Finance through email mentioning that they sanctioned Rs.7,89,000/- for the loan application No.LAI-118750634 and again on the same day the complainant received the offer letter from M/s. Lending Kart Finance through email in which they sanctioned Rs.7,85,000/-.  Complainant on 06.07.2023 received email from M/s. Lending Kart Finance stating that the complainant has to sign the Loan Application.  On 13.07.2023 he received one more email from M/s. Lending Kart Finance stating that they could not process the loan as it did not meet their eligibility criteria. Once the opposite party processed the application and sent offer letter it means that they accepted the contract. After accepting the contract again going back and rejecting the application was purely violation as per the Contract Act. Thus aggrieved by the act of the opposite party the present complaint was filed to direct the opposite party to sanction the loan amount of Rs.7,85,000/- as already sanctioned by them and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party along with litigation expenses to the complainant.

3. On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex A13 were submitted. Though notices were served to the opposite parties they did not appear before this commission to file any written version and hence they were called absent and set exparte on 30.10.2023 for non filing of written version within the mandatory period as per the statute.

Points for consideration:-

1. Whether the complaint allegations as to non intimation of the reason for rejection of the loan sanctioned by the opposite parties to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service?
2. If so, what relief the complainant is entitled to?

Point No.1:-

The following documents were filed on the side of complainant in support of their contentions;

1. First offer letter with loan sanctioned amount of Rs.7,89,000/- dated 04.07.2023 was marked as Ex.A1;
2. Second offer letter with loan amount sanctioned Rs.7,85,000/- dated 04.07.2023 was marked as Ex.A2;
3. Email requesting to sign the Loan Agreement document dated 06.07.2023 was marked as Ex.A3;
4. Query raised by shri.Vashali Sharma dated 10.07.2023 was marked as Ex.A4;
5. Acknowledgement copy collected from Lending kart finance for collecting the blank cheque leaves dated 10.07.2023 was marked as Ex.A5;
6. Email rejecting the loan dated 13.07.2023 was marked as Ex.A6;
7. The complainant sent letter to Shri.Vaishali Sharma with Ad card dated 15.07.2023 was marked as Ex.A7;
8. Denied rejection of loan sent by complainant to Grievance Cell redressal dated 17.07.2023  was marked as Ex.A8;
9. Complainant sent letter to Mr.John Anand incharge of M/s.Fin Max with AD card dated 18.07.2023 was marked as Ex.A9;
10. Purchase order issued in favour of complainant dated 17.07.2023 was marked as Ex.A10;
11. Reply to the query of 2^nd opposite party through email dated 10.07.2023 was marked as Ex.A11;
12. Reply to the query of 2^nd opposite party through email dated 11.07.2023 was marked as Ex.A12;
13. Reply to the query of 2^nd opposite party through email dated 13.07.2023 was marked as Ex.A13;

4. Heard learned counsel for the complainant and perused the material evidences produced by him.  It is the case of the complainant that he was sanctioned loan through 1^st opposite party for a sum of Rs.7,89,000/- which was later reduced to Rs.7,85,000/- from the 2^nd opposite party who processed the loan application.  However, after issuing the blank cheque slip and obtaining signature from the complainant, the 1^st opposite party sent an intimation via Email dated 13.07.2023 from the 1^st opposite party that the loan application could not be processed. When the complainant contacted the 1^st opposite party to know the reason he was not provided the same and hence the present complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in not providing the reason for rejection of the loan already sanctioned by them as per the RBI guidelines.

5. On perusal of the pleadings and material evidences it is seen that the offer letter from the 1^st opposite party for an amount of Rs.7,89,000/- and later on for a sum of Rs.7,85,000/- was issued to the complainant vide Ex.A1 and Ex.A2.  Further vide Ex.A3 the complainant was requested to sign the loan agreement for the sanctioned amount of Rs.7,85,000/-.  However vide Ex.A6 the 1^st opposite party rejected the loan sanctioned to the complainant stating that the loan application did not meet out the eligibility criteria.  On perusal of the documents filed by the complainant we could see that Ex.A4 dated 10.07.2023 was sent by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant.  In the said letter the 1^st opposite party sought for certain documents to be produced to process the loan and to get the loan amount disbursed in complainant’s account.  It is not stated by the complainant either in his pleadings or during arguments that whether the documents sought by the 1^st opposite party was provided by him.  It is stated in the rejection letter that the loan application was rejected as it does not meet out the eligibility criteria. On perusal in the website of Lending Kart we could see that under the eligibility the service is not available to minor under the age of 18 or to any users suspended or removed from the system by LENDING KART GROUP. Under such circumstances when they have specifically mentioned that the loan could not be sanctioned as the complainant did not meet out the eligibility criteria, the complainant could not compel or seek any relief from this Commission to direct the opposite parties do disburse the loan amount.  Further, the allegation that no reason was cited by the opposite parties for rejection of loan also could not be entertained when it has been specifically mentioned that the loan application does not meet the eligibility criteria.  It is for the complainant to approach the opposite parties to know which eligibility criteria was not meted out in his case and to process further.  Under such facts and circumstances we did not find any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in rejecting the loan application of the complainant as alleged by the complainant. Thus we answer the point accordingly in favour of the opposite parties and as against the complainant.  

Point No.2:

6. As we have held above that the opposite parties had not committed any deficiency in service the complainant is not entitled any relief from the opposite parties. Thus we answer the point accordingly. 

In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No order as to cost.

Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this 28^th day of December 2023.

      -Sd-                                                    -Sd-                                                            -Sd-

 MEMBER-II                                        MEMBER-I                                              PRESIDENT

List of document filed by the complainant:-

     -Sd-                                                           -Sd-                                                     -Sd-

MEMBER-II                                              MEMBER-I                                      PRESIDENT