BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
F.A. 1623/2007 against C.C. 250/2007, Dist. Forum-II, Hyderabad.
Between:
ICICI Bank Ltd.
Alluri Trade Centre
4th Floor, KPHB Main Road
Hyderabad. *** Appellant/
. O.P.
And
Ramakrishna Arugollu
S/o. Venkateswarlu
R/o. 12-2-720/9
Near Salama Hospital
P&T Colony, Rethibowli
Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad. *** Respondent/
Complainant
Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. S. Surya Prakasa Rao.
Counsel for the Respondent: M/s. L. Praveen Kumar.
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.
&
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
WEDNESDAY, THIS THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND TEN
ORAL ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D. Appa Rao, President.)
***
1) The appellant ICICI bank preferred the appeal against the order of the Dist. Forum directing it to pay Rs. 35,000/- towards compensation besides processing fee of Rs. 2,806/- together with costs.
2) The case of the complainant in brief is that he was a software engineer working in Wipro Technologies, Hyderabad. He entered into an agreement with Sri K. Kiran Kumar Reddy for purchase of plot of 175 sq.yds at Chandanagar, on 22.11.2006. He approached the appellant bank for house loan for purchase of plot and construction. One Mr. Pavan Kumar informed that it would take four days for sanction of loan and three days for disbursement. As 30 days was stipulated in the agreement he submitted application along with requisite documents and processing fee on 28.11.2006. Despite sanction letter when he was asking for the amount, on one reason or the other the employees were asking some information or other postponing the payment. Admittedly the agreement period was coming to a closure. In fact one of the employees informed that the process was over by 19.12.2006, and he could go for registration. Later one of the employees Mr. Pramod informed that second technical evaluation was not done. On 30.12.2006 the employees informed that he had to submit some more documents for further processing and that the registration could be done as per the market value for which the landlord did not agree. While the government rate was Rs. 3,000/- per sq.yd the market value was Rs. 10,000/- per sq.yd. Mr. Pramod one of the employees informed for the land value of Rs. 7 lakhs, he could claim an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs. Accordingly he convinced the landlord, and sent e-mail. Since the appellant has been taking time to process the loan he asked to stop further process on 2.1.2007. He went to IDBI bank on 2.1.2007 and obtained loan within eight working days. The landlord insisted that he had to pay Rs. 75,000/- for the delay. As he had already entered into the agreement and paid the amount, he had no other go than to pay Rs. 75,000/-. All this was due to delaying tactics adopted by the appellant bank. Therefore, he claimed Rs. 75,000/- for negligent processing and delaying in payment, Rs. 2,806/- towards processing fee, Rs. 50,000/- towards mental agony and costs.
3) The appellant bank resisted the case. It alleged that the complainant had approached for home loan and submitted loan application on 30.11.2006. Following the procedure for sanction of home loans, a loan sanction letter was issued basing on salary, income certificate furnished by the complainant. The property particulars would be asked to be furnished and the same would be forwarded to the legal and technical clearances besides verification of the property The loan amount shall not exceed 80% in case the property is residential house or apartment and 70% in case the property is an open plot. When he did not furnish the particulars of the property or agreement of sale loan was tentatively sanctioned purely basing on his salary. Subsequently he produced agreement of sale of open plot. It processed the loan application after collecting processing charges. The sanction letter contained terms and conditions wherein it was stated that it should not be construed as binding obligation on the part of the bank to provide financial assistance. The disbursement depends on legal and technical clearances besides marketable title etc. The amount mentioned in the agreement of sale Dt. 22.11.2006 was Rs. 18,90,000/-. The complainant did not want the said amount to be reflected in the sale deed, as the owner was not agreeing. However, it insisted that the sale deed should contain this amount. As he did not agree the loan disbursement was delayed. The officers insisted that before signing the agreement the sale deed should reflect the consideration mentioned in the agreement of sale, and that he would not be eligible for sanction unless the matter regarding market value consideration is finalized. When the complainant himself asked not to process the loan any further and obtained loan from IDBI bank he did not suffer any loss, and on that score he could not claim any amount towards compensation. The complainant was not entitled to any processing fee or refund of the amount or amount towards compensation or mental agony and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4) The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A10 marked, while the appellant filed the affidavit evidence of its Asst. General Manager and got Ex. B1 to B3 marked.
5) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the bank had promised to sanction loan within 7 working days which it could not, as a result of which, he was forced to borrow amount from some other party and in the process incurred Rs. 75,000/- as penalty for the delay. Therefore, the bank was directed to pay Rs. 35,000/- towards compensation for the delay in processing besides processing fee of Rs. 2,806/- and costs.
6) Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant bank preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective. The complainant cannot insist that the loan amount as per the agreement should be sanctioned without taking cognizance of the amount mentioned in the sale deed. No evidence was placed to show that he had paid Rs. 75,000/-to the owner in order to claim the amount. Before finalization of the loan application he himself sought for cancellation of his application as he had obtained loan from some other bank. Returning of processing fee or awarding compensation is erroneous. Therefore, it prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
7) The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?
8) It is an undisputed fact that the complainant submitted his loan application on 30.11.2006. Sanction letter was issued on 5.12.2006 tentatively sanctioning the loan. Later he produced agreement of sale Dt. 22.11.2006 for purchase of open plot wherein he was entitled to 70% of the total consideration of Rs. 18,90,000/- mentioned in the agreement. Admittedly, he was not agreeable to mention the entire consideration shown in the agreement in the sale deed as the vendor did not agree for mention of the said amount. The complainant alleges that in view of delay and non-sanction of this amount the owner insisted a penalty of Rs. 75,000/- to be paid which he had paid lest he was afraid that the owner may cancel the agreement.
9) At the outset, we may state that the complainant had entered into an agreement on 22.11.2006 for purchase of plot for Rs. 18,90,000/- evidenced under agreement Ex. A1 wherein he had paid Rs. 3,90,000/- towards advance. Undoubtedly, he needed Rs. 15 lakhs in order to get the sale deed executed. When he approached the appellant bank, according to him, the officers informed him that it would be disbursed within 7 working days. As 30 days was stipulated in the agreement he approached the appellant bank for loan processing on 28.11.2006 contrarily they had taken 15 days for two rounds of technical evaluation and therefore he asked the bank not to process any more. Then he approached the IDBI bank, got the loan sanctioned, paid the amount and obtained sale deed. The grievance of the complainant is that his owner had claimed Rs. 75,000/- as a penalty for delayed payment. All this was attributed to the appellant bank.
10) The complainant for the reasons best known did not file any document to show that his owner had asked him to pay penalty of Rs. 75,000/- and that he had paid the said amount. The complainant equally did not file sale deed in order to prove that though the amount sanctioned as per the agreement of sale, he was allowed to take the sale deed for a lesser amount. The complainant himself alleged that the appellant bank did not agree for such a course as it would show discrepancy between the said documents. Repeatedly the complainant alleged that the officers of the bank had promised to sanction the loan within the time period, however they did not do so, procrastinated on one ground or the other. No document whatsoever was filed by the complainant evidencing the delay on the part of the officers. He did not file even the application made by him to the IDBI bank in order to know the amount of loan sanctioned and the date of sale deed which was executed in his favour. He could have filed the documentary evidence in order to know whether the appellant bank was justified in not sanctioning loan on the ground that the complainant was not agreeable for executing the sale deed recoursing to the amount mentioned in the agreement.
Obviously, the bank will not agree if balance sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed varies from the amount mentioned in the agreement. When the complainant could not prove that in view of the delay caused by the bank if any, he was penalized by his seller, or that he had paid the amount at no stretch of imagination he could recover it from the appellant bank. The processing fee of Rs. 2,806/- that was collected from the complainant was only to cover the incidental expenses for processing. There is no logic or reason for awarding compensation of Rs. 35,000/- having opined that an amount of Rs. 75,000/- towards penalty was paid by the complainant to his owner.
11) The complainant is at fault in insisting that the bank should not object for showing lesser amount in the sale deed than that was mentioned in the agreement of sale. By adopting such procedure he would evade payment of stamp duty and registration charges. It will not reflect correct state of facts. As earlier stated the complainant could not prove that his vendor had collected Rs. 75,000/- towards penalty for the delay. Therefore the complainant was not entitled to any of these amounts.
12) In the result the appeal is allowed and the order of the Dist. Forum is set-aside. Consequently, the complaint is dismissed, however, without costs.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
Dt. 21. 04. 2010.
*pnr
