BEFORE THE  DIST. CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM;  DHARWAD.

DATE: 7^th April 2014         

PRESENT:

1) Shri B.H.Shreeharsha       : President

2) Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi             : Member

Complaint No.:3/2014  

Complainant/s:

Ganapati s/o. Kushappa Dani,             Age: 40 years, Occ: Business, R/o.No.39, Nakshatra Colony, 2^nd Cross, Shanti Nagar Extn., Hubli 580030.

(By Sri.Basavaprabhu Hoskeri, Adv.)

v/s

Respondent/s:

Reliance Home Finance Ltd., C/o. Reliance Communication, No.365/1, B2, Veer Annex, Near Savrodaya Circle, Kusugal Road, Keshwapur, Hubli 580023. R/by its Branch Manager.

(By Sri.J.M.Patil, Adv.)

O R D E R

By: Shri. B.H.Shreeharsha : President.

1.     The complainant has filed this complaint claiming for a direction to the respondents to refund Rs.7360/- with interest @15% P.A. and to return the documents collected, to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for loss and harassment, pay Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings and to grant such other reliefs.

Brief facts of the case are as under:

2.     The case of the complainant in brief is that, the complainant is a small time businessman. For his personal occupation planned to construct a house and hence availed financial assistance from Axis Bank Ltd., Hubli branch. Since the complainant could not able to manage the repayment and as he need additional finance for construction he approached respondent bank. In turn the respondent bank assured the complainant to take over the existing loan and as well as to grant additional loan. Hence, complainant on the advice of the respondent submits all required documents by spending nearly about Rs.2,000/-. In addition the complainant also paid Rs.4,000/- towards the stamp paper charges to execute the agreement as directed by the respondent. In turn the respondent sent welcoming letter with customer ID informing sanction of the loan and also of taking over the existing loan of the Axis Bank. Inspite of it the respondent except prolonging did not take over the loan nor disbursed the amount as undertaken. Surprisingly the complainant came to know that the respondent bank has deducted a sum of Rs.9,577/- and Rs.6,924/- through his said account as EMIs without disbursing the finance. The complainant approached the respondent protesting against respondent’s persey negligent and virtually unbanking practice. During that time respondent failed to justify its blunder and instead advised the complainant to write a simple mail to the company. By that the respondent could make repayment of the amount spent along with losses suffered. Though the complainant sent mail no useful purpose has been served, except committing additional blunder by the respondent. Fed up with deficient banking service the complainant got issued notice to the respondent. Despite service the respondent neither replied nor complied. In the meantime the respondent recredited the EMIs amount collected, but did not refund the other amount & return the documents collected from the complainant. Hence, the complainant filed the instant complaint claiming the relief as sought.

3.     In pursuance to the notice issued by this Forum the respondent appeared and filed detailed written version taking contention that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts and also denied the deficiency in service and unfair banking practice as alleged by the complainant. Further the respondent also denied entire complaint averments and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same. Among other admissions and denials the respondent admits the approach of the complainant for taking over the existing loan and also for avilment of additional loan amount for construction of the house. The respondent taken specific contention that the complainant along with one Mrs.Vidya G.Dani as a co-borrower approached the respondent for construction of the house in the property bearing CTS No.882A/1/4A and CTS No.882A/1/4B situated at Paraswadi Extn., Bengeri village of Hubli. The respondent further admits the sanction of the loan, but is subject to legal and technical clearance with regard to the properties which are to be mortgaged. Since the complainant ought to mortgage above two properties towards the advance of loan, the clearance of the title with regard to properties is very essential. That apart the complainant constructed the building by extending the same covering the area of above 2 properties without amalgamation and without producing amalgamation letters and also did not produced clearance certificate from the competent authority and also not produced necessary building permission and approved sanction plan for extended construction works in both CTS 882A/1/4A & 882A/1/4B, as the respondent company required the clearance. With regard to the above lacunas the respondent repeatedly requested the complainant to produce necessary documents, but the complainant did not produced. Hence, the respondent company did not disbursed the loan. There is no cause of action for the complaint and alleged cause of action is imaginary one as such the complaint is not maintainable. So also the respondents are not liable to pay any amount or compensation as there is no deficiency in service on the part of  respondent and pray for dismissal of complaint with exemplary costs. 

4.     On the said pleadings the following points have arisen for consideration:

1. Whether complainant has proved that there was deficiency in service on the part of respondent ?
2. Whether complainant is entitled to the relief as claimed ?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled ?

Both have admits sworn to evidence affidavit, relied on documents. The complainant apart from argument relied on citation.  Heard both side. Perused the records.

Finding on points is as under.

1. Accordingly 
2. Accordingly  
3. As per order

Reasons

Points 1 and 2

5.     On going through the pleadings & evidence coupled with documents of both the parties it is evident that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the complainant approached the respondent for taking over the existing loan and to sanction additional loan. So also there is no much dispute with regard to the fact that the respondents have assured to take over the loan and also to sanction additional loan.

6.     Now the question to be determined is, whether non disbursement of the amount by the respondent amounts to a deficiency in service, if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled.

7.     As discussed above briefly there is no much dispute with regard to the transactions in between the complainant and respondent. The main grievance of the complainant is that though the respondent did not disburse the amount as undertaken by them, the respondent bank debited a sum of Rs.16,501/- towards the EMIs. But complainant admits the said amount has been credited to his account subsequently by the respondent bank before approaching this Forum. The further grievance of the complainant is that the respondent has collected a sum of Rs.7360/- towards the processing charges and the same is not refunded and also the documents delivered to the respondent towards the process of the loan were not returned. So the said amount be refunded and the documents delivered by the complainant be directed to return and also for compensation.

8.     In reply to this, the respondent contended that though the respondent bank had agreed to sanction loan, since the complainant did not assist and furnish the necessary documents with regard to amalgamation of 2 properties by the concerned authorities and also did not produced building permission and approved plan for construction work on the properties in question inspite of repeated requests, the respondent bank was not able to disburse the amount unless clearance of the title which is to be mortgaged towards the security of the sanctioning of the loan. For this contention of the respondent the complainant did not whispered anything nor denied this contention of the respondent and produced any document to show that the properties intended by the complainant to offer as security towards the sanction of loan are free from title and also the complainant did not produced any document to show that he had obtained building permission and approved sanction plan to construct the house in the intending properties. Under those circumstances it is evident that at the instance of the complainant himself the respondent bank could not able to disburse the amount unless producing the clearance certificate with regard to the properties tobe mortgaged.

9.     However at the time of argument stage the respondent counsel agreed to return the stamp paper purchased at the cost of the complainant collected towards the execution of the agreement. By looking into the evidence and also the documents relied by both the parties it is further evident that the respondent bank after submission of the loan application by the complainant processed the papers for sanction of the loan. Under those circumstances there is no doubt to believe the respondent has incurred some expenses in scrutinizing the papers and getting legal opinion from the proper agencies.

10.   In this juncture the complainant counsel continuing his argument submits that there is no specific terms and conditions in the loan papers with regard to forfeiture of the process fee in the event  loan amount is not disbursed. Under those circumstances the respondent ought to have returned the entire amount collected towards the process. This concept of the complainant is not proper. Even otherwise looking into the case on hand at the instance of the complainant only the respondent bank could not able to proceed further and disburse the loan amount. Under those circumstances the complainant is not entitled for refund of entire process fee. In this regard the complainant relied on citation 2010(2) CPJ 189 NC- Jagmohan Lal Mohan v/s. ICICI Home Finance Co. Ltd., & Ors. Look into the gist of the above said case it is of different circumstances and is not applicable to the case on hand.

11.   In this regard this Forum relies on citation-2013 (4) CPR 820 NC- State Bank of Trivancore v/s. M.D. Kanjirapalli Amubsemen Park & Hotels Pvt. Ltd., wherein their lordships have held that, loan not sanctioned despite favourable feasibility study bank cannot be compelled to refund non refundable amount. So by restricting the claim of the complainant to an extent admitted by the respondent rest of the claim of the complainant is rejected.

12.  In view of the above discussions we have arrived and proceed to held issue.1 and 2 Accordingly.

13.   Point.3: In view of the finding on points 1 and 2 proceeded to pass the following 

Order

The complaint is partly allowed. The respondent is directed to refund  the stamp value collected from the complainant and to return all the documents received from the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards compensation and Rs.500/- towards the cost of the proceedings within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failing to comply the same, the said amount shall carry interest @9% P.A. from thereon till realization.

(Dictated to steno, transcribed by him and edited by us and pronounced in the open Forum on this day on 7^th day of April 2014)

(Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi)                                  (Shri.B.H.Shreeharsha)

Member                                                  President

Dist.Consumer Forum                                 Dist.Consumer Forum

MSR