Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/303/2013

V.Gunasekaran, - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. India Bull Housing Finance ltd - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.J.John

04 Feb 2022

ORDER

                                                                                       Date of Complaint Filed: 12.09.2013

                                                                                                                                                  Date of Reservation     : 07.01.2022

                                                                                                                                                   Date of Order              : 04.02.2022

                                                                     

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

Present:                           Thiru. R.V.R. Deenadayalan, B.A., B.L.           : President

                                         Thiru. T. Vinodh Kumar, B.A., B.L.                  : Member

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.303/2013

FRIDAY, THE 4^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

 

V. Gunasekaran,

S/o. P. Valayanantham,

No. W-550-A, 6^th Street,

Anna Nagar,

Chennai – 600 040.                                         .. Complainant                                          

..Versus..

 

1.The Branch Manager,

   M/s. India Bull Housing Finance Ltd

   No.20, 3^rd Floor, Apex Complex,

   Sir Thiyagara Road, T. Nagar,

   Chennai – 600 017.

 

2.The Manager,

   M/s. India Bull Security Ltd,

   Customer Care Dept.,

   India Bulls Home No.448-451,

   Udayogvihar, Phase V, Gurgaon,

   Hariyana State.         .                                     .. Opposite parties

 

******

Counsel for the complainant           : M/s. J. John & S. Sankaralingam

Counsel for the Opposite parties      : M/s. C. Umashankar

On perusal of records and having treated the written arguments of the complainant and  Opposite parties 1 & 2  as oral arguments, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by the President Thiru. R.V.R. Deenadayalan, B.A.,B.L.

1. The complainant has filed this complaint as against the opposite parties 1 & 2 under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to pay a sum of Rs.1124/- paid by the complainant onwards service charges along with interest @ 24% p.a and also direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service along with cost.

2.     The complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and written argument.  On the side of the complainant, documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 were marked. The opposite parties had submitted his version, proof affidavit and written Arguments and on the side of the Opposite parties documents Ex.B2 to Ex.B4 were marked.

3.The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

        Complainant is working as Executive Manager in a Chemical Marketing Company, at Chennai. The opposite parties are the Housing Finance Limited. The opposite parties offered to provide Housing Loan facility to the complainant to an extent of Rs.30,00,000/-. The complainant provided relevant documents to the opposite parties along with loan application form. Complainant also paid Rs.1,124/- towards service charges on 29.11.2012. Thereafter no communication was sent from the opposite parties. Hence complainant  issued a notice on 26.06.2013 calling upon them to expedite the loan sanction process. The second opposite parties send a vague reply. The conduct of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence this complaint is filed.

4.Written Version filed by the Opposite Parties in Brief:

        It is submitted that the complainant wanted to avail a housing loan for a sum of Rs.30 lakhs.  The first opposite party’s officials collected the copies of the documents produced by the complainant for verification. As per the norms for availing Home Loan facility complainant has to pay Rs.1124/- towards processing fee, which he has paid and the same was non-refundable in nature  and the loan is disbursed after verification of the documents. However after verification various technical flaws were found as well as legal discrepancies were found in the security deeds produced by the complainant. Thereafter the same was informed and return his application form and the documents. Since the ownership right over the security provided by the complainant is unclear the opposite parties rejected the loan facilities to the complainant. Hence it is requested to dismiss the complaint.

5.Points for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

2. Whether the complaint is entitled to get reliefs as claimed in the complaint?

3.To what relief, the complaint is entitled to?

6.Point No.1

        As per Ex.B2 the opposite parties called for some clarification and submit documents according to the legal  opinion from  the  complainant.

But no clarification was made and not submitted any required documents by the complainant to the opposite parties. The complainant further on perusal of opposite parties type set of  documents, especially in page No.9 & 10 would reveal that the ownership of the property itself is in dispute. The property was claimed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Considering all those facts the loan was not sanctioned  to the complainant by the opposite parties. The payment made by the complainant is a fee for processing the application. It is  non refundable one. Further sanctioning of the loan is purely on the discretion of the Banking Authorities. It cannot be questioned by the complainant simply on payment of  processing fee. Therefore we found that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Accordingly point No.1 is answered.

7.Point Nos. 2 & 3

        We have discussed and decided that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and therefore the complainant is not entitled to get any reliefs  as claimed in the complaint and as against the opposite parties.  Accordingly, Point Nos.2 & 3 are answered.

In the result, this complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

      Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on this the 04^th  day of February  2022.

 

 

       T.VINODH KUMAR                                       R.V.R.DEENADAYALAN                                                                                     

              MEMBER                                                       PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed on the side of the complainant:

 

Ex.A1	19.09.2012	Cheque issued by the complainant in favour of the opposite party
Ex.A2	26.06.2013	Legal Notice issued by complainant counsel to the opposite parties
Ex.A3	29.06.2013	Postal Receipts & Acknowledgement card
Ex.A4	31.07.2013	Reply letter sent by the 2nd opposite party
Ex.A5	-	ICICI Bank Statement

 

List of documents filed on the side of theOpposite Parties:

 

Ex.B1	07.11.2012	Residential Verification Report
Ex.B2	12.11.2012	Legal Opinion obtained by opposite parties for the security of the complainant
Ex.B3	24.11.2012	Valuation report along with photos
Ex.B4	31.07.2013	Reply to notice dated 26.06.2013 issued by the opposite parties

 

       

     T.VINODH KUMAR                                              R.V.R.DEENADAYALAN                                                                                     

              MEMBER                                                                  PRESIDENT