Delhi

North East

CC/141/2021

Ashish Aggarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s P.N.B. Housing Finance Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

06 Nov 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.141/21

In the matter of:

 

1.     2.	Ashish Aggarwal S/o Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta   Mrs. Ritu Gupta, W/o Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta   Both R/o: H.No. X-101, Gali No. 13, Braham Puri, Delhi 110053	Complainants
	Versus
1.             2.   3.     4.     5.	M/s PNB Housing Finance Limited, Through its Chairman/CMD/Director, Registered office of the PNB: 9th Floor, Antriksh Bhawan, 22 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi 110001   Sh. Rishabh Malik (Manager)   Sh. Manish Kumar (Customer Service Manager)   Sh. Jai Prakash Sharma (Relationship Manager)   Sh. Sumit Garg (Executive) Opposite No. 2, 3, 4 and 5 at: D-8, First Floor, Raj Nagar District Centre (RDC), Near BSNL Office, Ghaziabad 201002	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                         DATE OF ORDER  :

04.10.2021 13.09.2023 06.11.2023

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

ORDER

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainants

1. The case of the Complainants as revealed from the record is that the Complainant No. 2 is the original allottee of a residential plot bearing No. D-121 at residential sector B-5/6, Tronica City, Loni Ghaziabad, U.P vide lease deed dated 08.07.2005. The Complainants are mother and son in relation and they approached the Opposite Parties for availing housing loan under the scheme “Ghar Ki Baat” for construction of house in the aforesaid residential plot and they offered the said property for security of the said housing loan. Complainant fulfilled all the formalities and submitted all the requisite documents and thereafter Opposite Parties issued a loan sanction letter dated 15.02.2021 to the Complainant. After that the Opposite Parties asked the Complainants to fulfil some more formalities like issuance of letter to the Project Officer UPSIDA for depositing the original lease deed along with bank letter and Complainants complied the same on 01.03.2021. Thereafter the Opposite Parties revoked the previous loan sanction letter dated 15.02.2021 and issued a fresh loan sanction letter dated 10.03.2021 for Rs. 23,00,000/-. It is their case that all the formalities with regard to aforesaid loan were also fulfilled by the UPSIDA vide their correspondence dated 05.03.2021 and 23.03.2021 respectively and as such no formalities were left to be fulfilled on the part of the Complainants and authority. After that Complainants approached the Opposite Parties for disbursing the loan then on 31.03.2021, Opposite Parties handed over a loan disbursement advice to the Complainants. It is their case that during the process of the said housing loan Opposite Party No. 5 had demanded  a sum of Rs. 1,700/- as processing fee which was paid on 15.02.2021 and they got signed some blank papers from the Complainants on one pretext or other. It is their case that apart from the aforesaid amount a sum of Rs. 2,950/- was also deducted from the bank of the Complainant No. 1 on 07.04.2021 and further an amount of Rs. 1,335/- was also deducted from his bank account on 13.04.2021 without information and permission of Complainants. After that Opposite Parties ignored the Complainants and Opposite Party No. 3 asked the Complainants to contact with Opposite Party No. 2 with regard to disbursement of housing loan. It is their case that some days back the Complainant No. 1 received a message that the Opposite Parties had paid around Rs. 1 lakh to the concerned insurance company i.e. PNB Met Life India Insurance company for securing the housing loan out of the housing loan amount of the Complainant, whereas the Complainants had not received even a single penny till date. It is their case that two instalments of Rs. 5,823/- each for the month of May and June 2021 had also been deducted from the account of the Complainant No. 1 without disbursing the loan amount. Complainants stated that Opposite Parties had cheated the Complainants to the tune of more than twenty three lacs after a loan hassles for more than 2 months. Complainants sent a legal notice dated 25.05.2021 and Opposite Parties sent a false and frivolous reply dated 11.06.2021 but to settle the matter. Complainants stated that the original lease deed, site plan, possession letter of plot, 8 blank signed cheques, photographs, etc. are still in possession of the Opposite Parties and which are not returned to the Complainants despite several requests. Complainants have prayed to direct the Opposite Parties to hand over the cheques of home loan, to refund the amount of Rs. 21,171/- which they had deducted from the account of the Complainant along with interest @ 18 % p.a., Rs. 9,00,000/- on account of mental harassment and to return the original documents of the property.
2. None has appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2, Opposite Party     No. 3, Opposite Party No. 4 and Opposite Party No. 5 to contest the case despite service of notice. Therefore, Opposite Party No. 2, Opposite Party     No. 3, Opposite Party No. 4 and Opposite Party No. 5 were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 05.07.2022.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 1

3. The Opposite Party No. 1 contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that the Complainants approached the Opposite Party No. 1 for the purpose to avail loan for construction of the aforesaid property under the scheme of “Ghar Ki Baat” and the Opposite Party No. 1 entertained the Complainants for the purpose of loan sought. It is stated that the Complainant at initially submitted the documents for the purpose to avail loan and filled out the procedural formality pertaining to the loan. Thereafter, the loan was sanctioned by the Opposite Party No. 1 dated 15.02.2021 amounting to be     Rs. 22,00,000/- in the name of Complainant No. 1, however, it is pertinent to mention that the UPSIDC issued a letter dated 05.03.2021 to the Opposite Party No. 1 informing the plot is allotted in the name of Complainant No. 2, therefore, for the purpose of providing permission to mortgage in favour of Opposite Party No. 1, the loan shall be granted in the name of Complainant No. 2 as Primary Applicant and thereby at the receipt of the aforesaid letter, Opposite Party No. 1 could not make changed in the existing sanctioned loan and thus sanctioned another loan account no. HOU/KAVI/0321/869962 dated 10.03.21 with the Primary Applicant being Mrs. Ritu Gupta and in a bona fide manner informed the Complainant about the details of the letter dated 05.03.2021. It is further stated that in the light of the aforesaid circumstances, Opposite Party No. 1 issued another sanction letter dated 10.03.2021 in the name of Complainant No. 2 as primary applicant of the loan amounting to be Rs. 23,00,000/- wherein one lakh amount was adjusted towards the insurance of the entire loan amount on the behest and request of the customers. It is further stated that the disbursement letter dated 31.03.2021 was received by the Opposite Party No. 1 in the light of the sanction letter dated 10.03.2021. It is humbly submitted that the sanctioned plan submitted by the Complainant was expired and the insight was conveyed to the Complainant at the moment of submission of the said document and the Complainant was further called upon to submit the re-validated sanction plan as per the terms and conditions present in clause 2(a) of the Disbursement Letter dated 31.03.2021. The Complainant assured the Opposite Party No. 1 in this regard to fulfil the obligations of submitting the valid sanction plan and the relevant clause 2(a) is reproduced herein for ready reference:   ”Cheque to be handed over once the Authority duly acknowledge the application and is of opinion that copy of sanction plan as provided can be consider for further go ahead without any re-validation, or if any time extension charges are required to be paid same needs to be done accordingly as per UPSIDC compliance.”
4. It is stated that as provided in the above clause, the cheques of the loan amount were only to be issued in favour of the Complainant once the UPSIDC acknowledge the application of the Complainant in reference to the submitted expired sanction plan of the said property or issuance of new sanction plan. Therefore, the Opposite Party No. 1 done everything in favour of the Complainant, but the Complainant did not comply with the required condition of the loan thereby the cheque pertaining to the loan amount was not being handed over the Complainant. It is further stated that the Complainant failed to comply with the submission of the sanction plan acknowledged by the UPSIDC therefore, and despite of the reminders, the Complainant acted shrewdly and ignored the reminders sent by the Opposite Party No. 1 as per the sanction letter dated 10.03.2021 issued by PNBHFL, after 90 days it was expired owing to non-fulfilment of obligations on behalf of the Complainant. It is further stated that the after receiving no reasonable justification and response from the Complainant in reference to the delay in submitting the re-validated sanction plan therefore, the Opposite Party No. 1 was constrained to cancel the sanctioned loan issued in the name of the Complainants. It is further submitted that after issuance of disbursement letter, an entry was automatically entered in the IT database of the Opposite Party No. 1 and thereby it was observed that the EMI’s of loan repayment was deducted from the account of the Complainant for two months however, it is significant to mention that the said amount was reimbursed in the account of the Complainant which was deducted from the account of the Complainant, the same could be enumerate in the account as two instalments of 5,823/- each whereof consolidate to be Rs. 11,646/-. It is further submitted that the aforesaid deducted amount was refunded to the account of the Complainant dated 02.07.2021, since the loan was cancelled and Opposite Party No. 1 in its bona fide, refunded the amount of Rs. 11,646/- in the account of the Complainant. It is further stated that the Complainant failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the sanctioned loan despite consistent follow-ups by the Opposite Party No. 1, therefore, the Opposite Party No. 1 was constrained to cancel the sanctioned loan. Hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party No. 1.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No. 1

5. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No. 1, wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party No. 1 and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

6. The Complainants in support of their complaint filed their affidavit wherein they have supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 1

7. To support its case Opposite Party No 1 has filed affidavit of Smt. Shubhangi, wherein, she has supported the case of the Opposite Party No. 1 as mentioned in the written statement.

 

 

Arguments & Conclusion

8. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant and Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 1. We have also perused the file and written arguments filed by the Complainant and Opposite Party No. 1. The case of the Complainants is that they have applied for house loan from the Opposite Party No. 1 for which sanctioned letter issued on 10.03.2021. After fulfilling all the formalities asked by the Opposite Party No. 1, Opposite Party No. 1 did not disburse the loan. Even EMIs was deducted from the account of the Complainants by the Opposite Party No. 1 without disbursing the said loan. Hence, there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party No. 1. The case of the Opposite Party No. 1 is that it is admitted that they have sanctioned the loan to the Complainants vide letter dated 10.03.2021. It is the case of the Opposite Party No. 1 that while sanctioning the said loan there was a condition in the loan agreement and relevant clause of 2.1(a) as below: ”Cheque to be handed over once the Authority duly acknowledge the application and is of opinion that copy of sanction plan as provided can be consider for further go ahead without any re-validation, or if any time extension charges are required to be paid same needs to be done accordingly as per UPSIDC compliance.”
9. Since, the Complainant did not complied with the condition of the loan agreement i.e. non submission of the re-validated sanction plan from the Competent Authority to the Opposite Party No. 1 despite reminders and for the said reason the loan was cancelled. It is further submitted by the Opposite Party No. 1 that they have returned Rs. 11,646/- on account of two instalments which were deducted from the account of the Complainants. Since, the complainant failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the sanctioned loan despite consistent follow-us by the Opposite Party No. 1. Hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party No. 1.
10. After going through the written statement and evidence filed by the Opposite Party No. 1, it is found that the Opposite Party No. 1 did not lead any evidence regarding issuing any letter or reminder to the Complainant about submission of re-validated sanction plan and cancellation of the said loan. It is further noted that even after cancelling the loan, Opposite Party No. 1 did not return the original documents which are submitted by the Complainant for availing the said loan.
11. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party No. 1. Opposite Party No. 1 is directed to return all the original documents to the Complainant which were submitted by the Complainant to the Opposite Party No. 1 for obtaining the said loan within four weeks from the date of this order. Any delay of handing over the original documents to the Complainant, Opposite Party No. 1 shall pay an amount of         Rs. 1000/- per day after expiry the four weeks from the date of this order. Opposite Party further directed to pay an compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the Complainant on account of mental harassment along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.
12. Order announced on 06.11.2023.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)		(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)		(President)