Date of Filing: 16.06.2008<br /> Date of Order:10.09.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2008<br /> PRESENT<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 /> COMPLAINT NO: 1328 OF 2008<br /> <br /> Pankaj Kumar<br /> No. 908, 2nd C Cross<br /> Near Shiva Theatre<br /> Koramnagala 8th Block<br /> Bangalore 560 095 Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> Reliance Capital Limited<br /> Lalbagh Road<br /> In front of Prerana Motors<br /> Bangalore Opposite Party<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed by the complainant. The facts stated by him are that he applied for housing loan with the opposite party. Due to careless behaviour and lack of co-operation opposite party took three months time to give loan sanction letter. The opposite party failed to collect NOC from builder. The opposite party informed that interest rates are revised to 10.75%. Earlier rate of interest told by the opposite party was 9.95%. It is the case of the complainant that due to the fault of the opposite party there was delay. Therefore, he withdrew home loan request and demanded for refund of processing fee. He had been to the office many times. He had taken loan from BHW on higher rate of interest. Complainant has gone through lot of mental and physical stress. Therefore, he has prayed refund of processing fee of Rs. 5,618/- and compensation. <br /> 2. Notice issued to opposite party. Opposite party has put in appearance and filed defence version stating that complaint is not maintainable. Complaint has no cause of action. The opposite party admitted that complainant had approached for sanction of loan, however failed to provide appropriate documents. Complainant had made application on 18.12.2007. Opposite party counsel had given opinion on 21.12.2007. He has clearly established that there was no delay on the part of opposite party in processing the loan. Affidavit produced by the co-applicant signature did not tally. Opposite party informed through mails to provide necessary documents. The complainant after receiving sanction letter refused to accept the loan on frivolous grounds. Opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> 3. Arguments are heard.<br /> 4. The point for consideration is:<br /> “Whether the complainant is entitled for refund of processing fee of Rs. 5,618/-?”<br /> 5. I have gone through the complaint and documents.<br /> 6. It is admitted case of the parties that the complainant had applied for housing loan with the opposite party. It is also admitted fact that the opposite party has collected Rs. 5,618/- as processing fee from the complainant. This fact is evident from the sanction letter dated 21.02.2008. The complainant has produced account statement of ICICI Bank. By this bank statement also it is clear that sum of Rs. 5,618/- was paid to the opposite party. Therefore, there was absolutely no dispute of the fact that the complainant has paid Rs. 5,618/- to the opposite party towards processing fee of loan. It is also admitted case of the parties that the complainant has not taken the loan though sanctioned by the opposite party. The complainant himself has stated in his complaint that he withdrew from the home loan request and demanded the opposite party to refund the processing fee. He had approached the opposite party office several times and demanded for repayment. The opposite party has not proved or provided any evidence or rules or regulations to show that the processing fee colleted from the complainant is liable for forfeiture. In the absence of any rules or regulations it would be just, fair and reasonable to direct the opposite party to refund processing fee of Rs. 5,618/- to the complainant, since the complainant has not obtained the loan and he had with drawn his loan application. The opposite party in the defence has not mentioned any rule or regulation to show that processing fee collected from the complainant is not liable for refund. Therefore, it would be very just, proper and reasonable to direct the opposite party to refund the processing fee. Consumer protection Act is a social and benevolent legislation. It intended to protect better interests of the consumers. Complainant is a consumer under the definition of ‘Consumer’ as defined under section 2 of Consumer Protection Act 1986. He cannot be made to suffer without obtaining any benefit from the service provider. The complainant has sought payment of compensation for mental agony and stress. On the facts and circumstances of the case this is not a case to grant any compensation to the complainant. The ends of justice will be met in refunding the processing fee to the complainant. In the result I proceed to pass the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 7. The complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to refund Rs. 5,618/- the processing fee to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order. In the event of non-compliance of the order within 30 days in that case the amount carries interest at 12% p.a. from the date of order till payment/realisation. <br /> 8. The opposite party is directed to send the amount of Rs. 5,618/- to the complainant directly by way of cheque/ D.D. with intimation to this forum.<br /> 9. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 10. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2008. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings. <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br />