Sri. P.Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):

                    The complainant filed this complaint u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986.

                   2. Brief fact of this complaint is as follows:   The complainant is an Ex-Serviceman from the Indian Army.  As a profession he wants a business of sale of Onion and Potato and for this purpose for getting fund he published an advertisement in Quikr web site requesting financial institutions for providing financial assistance to the complainant.  The opposite party herein promised to provide financial assistance to the complainant.   The opposite party sent company web address and printed details of loan processing conditions to the complainant and asked him to submit certain documents for the loan purposes.  The opposite party after verification of all documents and agreed to provide a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- to the complainant with the knowledge of existing liability of complainants property.  On 03.03.2015 the opposite party issued a loan funding offer and asked him to pay Rs. 3,320/- as the processing charge.  The complainant remitted the amount on 12.03.2015 of opposite party’s account with Kotak Mahindra Bank, Ajmer Branch.  As the opposite party asked the complainant to visit the Head Office at Ajmer, he visited there and   discussed all details regarding the loan.  According to him, the officials of the opposite party assured him Rs. 40,00,000/- as business loan to him.  On 07.04.2015 in the light of loan sanction letter the complainant again remitted Rs. 1,17,522/- to the opposite parties account as stated above.  It is stated that, after the receipt of the above amount Rs.1,20,845/- (Rs. 3320 + 117522)  the opposite party sent a printed agreement form consisting of 26 pages to the complainant.  According to the complainant, in the 23^rd page of the said printed agreement, it explains a certificate which has to be issued by the Tahsildar concerned.  It was absolutely impossible on the part of the complainant to obtain such a certificate as prescribed by the opposite party. The said fact also intimated to the opposite party.  When the opposite party received the letter from the complainant he sent a cancellation letter to the complainant and suggested a refund of 60% amount paid by the complainant to the opposite party.  Therefore, the complainant was not in a possession to accept this suggestion and sent a letter to the opposite party stating his willingness to go ahead the agreement.  For this letter the opposite party has been not responded.  The complainant again contented that, the act of the opposite party is a serious deficiency in the service and the opposite party is liable to the complainant with regard to his illegal act.  He again stated that, the whole practice on the part of the opposite party reveals fraud on his part and the opposite party deceives the complaint and obtained the money.  On 02.06.2015 the complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite party to redress his grievances.  Even though the complainant receives this legal notice he was reluctant to redress the complaint of the complainant and sent a drafted letter for the cancellation of said loan process.  According to him, this cancellation process of the opposite party itself shows the grave deficiency in services.  Hence the complainant file this complaint for the return of the amount of Rs. 1,20,842/- and for some other monetary benefit as compensation and losses.

          3.  This Forum entertained the complaint and issue notice to the opposite party for his appearance.  Even though coersive steps have been taken for his appearance the opposite party did not appear before the Forum directly.  But at the same time opposite party received the e.mail dated 12.01.2016 issue from this Forum.  At last on 29.01.2016 the opposite party declares exparte and the case posted for exparte evidence.  On the basis of the pleading of the complainant we raised following points for consideration.

1. Whether the case is maintainable before this Forum?
2. Whether the opposite parties committed any deficiency in services as alleged by the complaint?
3. Regarding the relief and costs?

4.   In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complaint filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and he is examined as PW1 and marked Exts. A1 to A14.  Ext.A1 is the e-mail print of  Loan Funding Offer Letter dated 03.03.2015 issued by the opposite party to the complainant, Ext.A2 is the e-mail print of  Loan Funding Offer Letter of take over loan  dated 11.03.2015 issued by the opposite party to the complainant, Ext.A3 is the customer acknowledgement  receipt dated 12.03.2015 issued by HDFC bank, Pathanamthitta branch to the complainant, Ext.A4 is the loan sanction letter dated 07.04.2015 issued by the opposite party to the complainant,  Ext.A5 is the customer acknowledgement dated 07.04.2015 issued by HDFC bank, Pathanamthitta branch to the complainant, Ext.A6 is the e-mail print of payment receipt dated 07.04.2015 issued by the opposite party to the complainant, Ext.A7 is the e-mail print of loan agreement  issued by the opposite party to the complainant, Ext.A8 is the e-mail print of letter of complainant sent to the opposite party on 19.04.2015,  Ext.A9 is the e-mail print of letter form drafted and issued to the complainant to the opposite party for cancellation of loan, Ext.A10 is the e-mail print of letter dated 24.04.2015, Ext.A11 is the copy of advocate’s  dated 02.06.2015 issued by the opposite party, Ext.A12 is the postal acknowledgement receipt of notice by the opposite party, Ext.A13 is the e-mail print letter  dated 16.06.2015 sent to the complainant by the opposite party, and  Ext.A14 is the e-mail print of reply notice dated 01.07.2015 issued to the complainant by the opposite party.    At the time of hearing, the complainant requested us to mark all the e-mails which were sent by the opposite party to this Forum.  The request is allowed and all these e-mails are marked as Ext.C1 series.  When we peruse the evidence adduced by the complainant through proof affidavit it is more or less as per the tune of the complainant.  The PW1 depose that, he has remitted Rs. 1,20,842/- as the process fee and loan disbursement fee and  it is also deposed that, even though he sent so many letters to the opposite party, but the opposite party was not act as promised.  According to the PW1, he has gone to Ajmer as per the direction of the opposite party and spent a huge amount for availing the loan amount. Even though the PW1 adduced evidence through his proof affidavit and as per Exhibits explained above, the opposite party was either present or cross examined him.  Hence the evidence adduced by PW1 is unchallengeable as far as the opposite party concerned.  It is also clear that, the opposite party received e-mail notice from the Forum and several time the opposite party sent e-mail to this Forum and at  last the opposite party requested this Forum for an adjournment also.  This can be revealed through Ext.C1 series.  At this juncture, it can be presumed that the opposite party is purposefully evaded the process of this Forum.  After the closure of complainant’s evidence, we heard the complaint.

             5. Point Nos.1 to 3 :-  For the sake of evidence we would like to consider point No.1 to 3 together.  The first issue is with regard to the maintainability of the case.  On the basis of the available evidence adduced by PW1 it is clear that, the complainant is a consumer of the opposite party.  In order to get loan facility the complainant remitted the amount as stated above.  Hence point No.1 is found in favour of the complainant.  The next question to be considered is whether the opposite party committed any deficiency in service as pleaded by the complainant?  When we peruse the testimony of PW1 it is to see that, as an Ex- service man of Indian Military who wants to set up a good life of promise in his village he published his willingness in a web site and in pursuance of that email on 03.03.2015 the opposite party sent a letter to the complainant which was marked as Ext.A1 in this case.  It is also convince that, as per Ext.A2 dated 13.03.2015 the opposite party promised a loan amount of Rs.40,00,000/- to the complainant.  It is also evident that, as per Ext.A3 and Ext.A5 PW1 remitted Rs. 3,320/- and Rs.1,17,522/- respectively to the opposite party and the said amount were sent through HDFC  Bank, Pathanamthitta.  It is evident to see that, the opposite party sent form of agreement in page No.26 of the complaint which was also marked as Ext.A7.  It shows that, in page No.23 of the said Ext.A7 the opposite party wants to get a certificate attested by the concerned Tahsildar.  When we peruse the said page No.23 it reveals that, the certificate is purported only for an employed person.  When we believe the testimony of PW1 it is clear that, the opposite party sent this form of agreement knowing that he is an Ex-service man and having no job.  PW1 informed his inability to obtain the above said certificate to the opposite party on 19.09.2015 and this letter is also marked as Ext.A8.  The Ext.A9 is the loan cancellation letter issued by the opposite party in favour of PW1.  When we look into this Ext.A9 we are not in a possession to agree with the contention raised by the opposite party through Ext.A9. It is also to see that, there is no justification on the side of the opposite party to retain 40% of the remitted amount.  Considering the above evidence in this case it is also clear that, even if the complainant took earnest attempt to avail the loan from the opposite party the act of the opposite party in response of the complainant’s said earnest attempt was no justifiable.  The complainant again pointed out that, the e-mail letters between the complainant and the opposite parties are also to be considered as a deficiency in service against the opposite party.  The said argument raised by the complainant at the time of hearing also is convincing when we peruse the e-mail letters between the complainant and the opposite party.

6.     At the time of hearing the complainant requested us to mark the e-mail letters of the opposite party to this Forum.  We argued the complainant’s suggestion and all these e-mail communications are marked as Ext.C1 series.  When we peruse this Ext.C1 series it is a convincing evidence to show that the opposite party had known the proceedings against him before the Forum and several times he sent e-mail letters to this Forum and sought adjournment.  Therefore his e-mail letters can be considered as an appearance of opposite party before the Forum but at the same time he has not filed any version.     

      7.    In the light of the evidence adduced by the complainant in this case it is clear that, the opposite party committed grave deficiency in services and unfair trade practice against the complainant.  In order to substantiate the case of the complainant, the complainant adduced cogent and conclusive evidence for the satisfaction of this Forum.  Hence we found that, the complaint is allowable and Point No.2 and 3 found in favour of the complainant.

                       8.  In the result, we passed the following orders:

1. The opposite party is directed to return Rs. 1,20,842/- (Rupees  

One Lakh Twenty Thousand Eight hundred and forty two only) to the complainant with 10% interest from the date of complaint ie, 05.08.2015 onwards.

2. The opposite party also allowed to realize a compensation of

Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) from the opposite party with 10% interest from date of order onwards.

3. A cost of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) is also allowed to  

the complainant as cost of this case from the opposite party with 10% interest from date of order onwards.

      Declared in the Open Forum on this the 31^st day of March, 2016.

                                                                                                                  (Sd/-)

P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

                                                                                         (President)

Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member –I)             :   (Sd/-)

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member – II)               :   (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :  Anilkumar M.T.

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1 :  E-mail print of  Loan Funding Offer letter dated 03.03.2015 issued

        by the opposite party to the complainant.

A2 :  e-mail print of  Loan Funding Offer Letter of take over loan  dated  

        11.03.2015 issued by the opposite party to the complainant.

A3 :  E.mail print of loan sanction letter dated 07.04.2015 issued

        by opposite party to the complainant.

A4:   Customer acknowledgement  receipt dated 12.03.2015 for Rs.3,320/-   

        issued by HDFC bank, Pathanamthitta branch to the complainant.

A5:   Customer acknowledgement dated 07.04.2015 issued by HDFC bank,  

        Pathanamthitta branch to the complainant.

A6 :  E-mail print of payment receipt dated 07.04.2015 issued by the

        opposite party to the complainant.

A7 :  E-mail print of loan agreement form (26 pages)  issued by the

        opposite party to the complainant.

A8 :  E-mail print of letter of complainant sent to the opposite party

        on 19.04.2015.

A9 :   E-mail print of letter form drafted and issued to the complainant

         to the opposite party for cancellation of loan.

A10 : E-mail print of letter dated 24.04.2015.

A11 : Copy of advocate’s  dated 02.06.2015 issued by the opposite party.

A12 : Postal acknowledgement receipt of notice by the opposite party.

A13 :  E-mail print letter  dated 16.06.2015 sent to the complainant

          by the opposite party.

A14 :  E-mail print of reply notice dated 01.07.2015 issued to the complainant   

          by the opposite party.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:  Nil.

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:  Nil.

Court Exhibits:

C1 Series:  E-mail letters between the complainant and the opposite party

                 (11 Nos.)

                                                                                      (By Order)

Copy to:- (1) Anil Kumar M.T., Muthengaparampil House,

          Malayalapuzha – Eram P.O, Thalachira,

          Malayalapuzha Village, Pathanamthitta Dist,

          P.I.N -  689 664.

     (2) Secretary, M/s. Swarnim Total Services Pvt. Ltd,

          Opp. of Gas Godown, Near 9^th No. Petrol Pump,

          Nasirabad Road, Ajmer Dist, Rajasthan,

                   P.I.N – 305 001.

              (3) The Stock File.