Justice Pritam Pal, President 1. This appeal by opposite party is directed against the order dated 10.12.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh whereby complaint bearing No.942 of 2009 of Ms.Prem Lata etc. was allowed with costs of Rs.5000/- and OP was directed to refund to the complainants a sum of Rs.11657/- + Rs.1123/- =Rs.12,780/- alognwith interest @ 12% per annum since the date of deposit till its payment and compensation of Rs.50,000/-. These amounts were directed to be paid within thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which OP was made liable to pay the entire amount alongwith penal interest @ 12% per annum since the filing of the complaint i.e. 7.7.2009 till its payment. 2. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their status before the District Consumer Forum. 3. In nutshell, the facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainants jointly had intended to purchase a house and they executed an agreement with the owner of H.No.601, Sector 11, Panchkula for the purchase of said house at a total cost of Rs.55.00 lacs, out of which a sum of Rs.10.00 lacs was given as earnest money. Complainants contacted OP for the purpose of advancement of loan and completed all the formalities. Thereafter, OP vide its letter dated 13.9.2008 sanctioned a loan of Rs.22.75 lacs for which an amount of Rs.21,750/- was paid as process, legal fee and for preparation of other documents. However, the matter with regard to disbursement of loan thereafter kept on lingering and vide letter dated 30.1.2009 the OP informed that the loan could not be disbursed because of problem in the title but neither the defect of title was specified nor any other technicality was explained. It was alleged that due to refusal by the OP at the eleventh hour the complainants had to face a lot of hardship as the seller extended the date only after negotiating with a sum of Rs.3.50 lacs. Finding no other alternative, complainants took loan of Rs.20.00 lacs from the Union Bank of India after executing fresh agreement with the sellers. It was averred that the OP had refused the loan without any cogent reason and put the complainants in lot of tension and not even refunded the sum of Rs.21,750/- charged for processing/legal charges. Hence, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP, complainants filed complaint before the District Forum. 4. On the other hand, the case of OP before the District Forum was that the amount of Rs.22.75 lacs was sanctioned but it has been submitted that the loan was sanctioned under the belief that the borrower would submit the documents in original at the time of disbursement. The complainants had deposited Rs.11,375/- as upfront fee whereas they were required to deposit Rs.22,775/- i.e. 1% of the sanctioned amount. It was pleaded that there was no delay on the part of OP to release the fund but it had to be done only after satisfying itself as to whether permission to sell the shares of the minors had been received by the guardian of the minors from the learned Court Panchkula which as per the orders dated 1.11.2008 was passed in favour of only one minor child i.e. Ms. Ruchika and the permission to sell the share of another minor Ms.Nupur was not submitted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP, a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint. 5. The District Consumer Forum after going through the evidence and hearing the counsel for the parties allowed the complaint as indicated in the opening part of this judgment. This is how feeling aggrieved, opposite party has come up in this appeal. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully. The only noticeable point of arguments raised on behalf of OP is that the District Forum has erred while granting compensation of Rs.50,000/- with the observation that the complainant had to pay Rs.3.50 lacs on account of not disbursing the required loan well in time. Further the learned counsel for OP also assailed the direction with regard to refund of Rs.12780/- paid as processing fee. In that regard he also made reference to the conditions mentioned in the agreement whereby the tax amount levying on the processing fee was to be deducted from the aforesaid deposited amount by the complainants. On the other hand, the learned counsel for complainants did his best to repel the aforesaid arguments raised on behalf of OP but he could not point out any material on file which could show that the complainant had to suffer loss of Rs.3.50 lacs as observed by the District Forum. 7. Here it is also pertinent to mention that the complainants in para-3 (b) of the complaint( page 29 of paper book) submitted that only a loss of Rs.30,000/- was suffered as the loan was not disbursed well in time. Thus, in this view of the matter we feel that the observation made by the District Forum regarding the loss of Rs.3.50 lac caused to the complainants on account of fault of OP is not based upon any convincing evidence. Thus, compensation of Rs.50,000/- awarded on account of loss caused to the complainants appears to be on the higher side. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that if the same is reduced to Rs.25,000/- from Rs.50,000/- that would meet the ends of justice in this case. So, we order accordingly. 8. Now adverting to the second contention with regard to service tax etc. paid by OP out of the total processing amount of Rs.12,780/-, in that regard we are of the considered opinion that since the loan already sanctioned in favour of the complainants was not disbursed by OP and no specific reason was pointed out to the complainants in that behalf, therefore, we find nothing wrong in the direction given for refunding the same to the complainants. 9. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed with above modification in the amount of compensation which has been reduced from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.25,000/- . Rest of the relief and directions given by the District Forum are maintained. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT | , | |
