Date of Filing:22.12.2009<br /> Date of Order:22.07.2010<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> <br /> Dated: 22ND DAY OF JULY 2010<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 3034 OF 2009 <br /> <br /> <br /> M/s. Rathod Build Mart Pvt., Ltd.,<br /> No.148-B, Site No.25/5, <br /> Industrial suburb, <br /> Yeswanthpur, <br /> Bangalore-22. <br /> Rep. by its Director Sri Kiran Rathod Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> M/s. ICICI Bank Ltd.,<br /> ICICI Bank Towers,<br /> No.1, commissariat Road,<br /> Bangalore-25. <br /> Rep. by its Manager Opposite party<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> The brief facts of the case are as under, the complainant had applied for loan with the opposite party bank. The loan was sanctioned of Rs.2 Million on 24-1-2008. The opposite party collected Rs.22,472/- as processing fee. The opposite party has come up with theory that the title of the property is not clear and asked the complainant to provide alternate properties. Thereafter, the loan sanctioned was withdrawn. The complainant sought for refund of processing fee. The opposite party refused to refund of the amount without reason. Hence, the complaint, for seeking refund of Rs.22,472/- with interest. <br /> 2. The opposite party has filed defense version, admitting that the complainant had applied for loan and the payment of processing fee is also admitted. The opposite party had collected the processing fee, in advance before disbursement of loan. The disbursement of loan is subject to clear and marketable title of the property. The lawyers of the opposite party have given opinion that title of the properties is not clear. Title search requires detailed inspection by the lawyers, which is not done at free of costs. The complainant has failed to provide requisite documents. Hence, the loan was not disbursed, the opposite party requested to dismiss the complaint. <br /> <br /> 3. The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence. On behalf of the opposite party also filed affidavit evidence. Heard, the arguments on both the sides. <br /> 4. In the light of the arguments advanced by the learned Advocates for the respective parties, the following points arise for consideration:-<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?<br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for refund of the processing fee, if so what is the amount from the opposite party?<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 5. It is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant had applied for loan with the opposite party bank and submitted documents. It is also admitted case of the parties that the opposite party bank had collected Rs.22,472 as processing fee from the complainant. After scrutiny of the documents by the lawyers of the opposite party bank it was found that title is not clear. Therefore, even though the loan was sanctioned but, the opposite party bank did not disburse the loan amount and the matter was closed there itself. The complainant requested for refund of processing fee paid by him. The opposite party refused to same. Therefore, the complainant was forced to file this complaint. The opposite party has taken defense that processing fee was collected in advance. The disbursement of loan is subject to clear and marketable title of the property. The lawyers opined that the title is not clear. Therefore, the loan was not disbursed the opposite party has taken defense that inspection of documents and giving of opinion by the lawyers is not done free of cost and the opposite party has paid lawyers fee for getting legal opinion. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for refund. It is true that the bank has to pay lawyers fee for getting legal opinion. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for refund of entire processing fee. However, part of the amount can be refunded since the opposite party bank had not disbursed the loan. On the facts of the case Rs.5,000/- can be said as just, fair and reasonable fee to be paid to the lawyers of the opposite party bank. If that amount is deducted in the processing fee the balance amount of Rs.17,472/- is liable to refunded to the complainant. The opposite party bank can not collect unreasonable fee without rendering service. Therefore, in this case it is fair and proper to direct the opposite party to refund Rs.17,472/- to the complainant. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:-<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 6. The complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to refund Rs.17,472/- to the complainant within 60 days from the date of this order. In the event of non compliance of the order within the 60 days the said amount carries interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of passing this order till payment / realization. <br /> 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 22ND DAY OF JULY 2010. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br /> <br />