Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
- The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) on the allegations that the Complainant had to obtain house loan and on the allurement and assurance of Opposite Party No.1, he handed over the original property documents i.e. sale deed, salary slip, form-16 and other relevant documents to Opposite Party No.1 and he assured the Complainant that Opposite Parties will get sanction loan of Rs.15 lakhs in favour of the Complainant within a short period. Not only this, alongwith above referred original documents, the Complainant also handed over two blank signed cheques of his accounts lying in State Bank of India and Cooperative Bank to Opposite Party No.1. The Complainant alleges that thereafter, Opposite Party No.1 got completed entire paper formalities from him and applied for home loan. On 08.03.2018, the Complainant received a message on his mobile that his home loan file having No. 631469145 has been login and also a sum of Rs.5500/- as processing fee has been deducted from his saving bank account of Cooperative Bank, on 13.03.2018. Thereafter, on the demand of Opposite Party No.1, the Complainant also provided NEC from the concerned department by spending approximately Rs.1500/- and even at the instance of Opposite Party No.1, the Complainant got prepared/ approved site plan of his house as well as its valuation from the concerned department/ authority by spending approximately Rs.3000/- and all these documents were handed over to Opposite Party No.1 and after receiving all these documents, Opposite Party No.1 assured the Complainant that the loan will be sanctioned within a few days. Thereafter, the Complainant approached the Opposite Party No.1 time and again to confirm about the status of loan, but initially, the Opposite Party No.1 lingering on the matter on one pretext or another, but lateron started demanding a huge amount on account bribe to get the loan sanctioned. When, the Complainant refused to pay the bribe to Opposite Party No.1, then he in connivance with Opposite Parties No.2 to 4 rejected the home loan file on 31.03.2018 without any reasonable cause. Due to the above mentioned illegal act, the Complainant is suffering mental agony, harassment and financial loss and hence there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
- The Opposite Parties may be directed to pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh on account of mental agony, harassment and financial loss due to his illegal act and necessary action be taken against Opposite Parties No.2 to 4 for not sanctioning the home loan to the Complainant or any other relief to which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper.
2. Upon notice, Opposite Party No.1 has refused to accept the notice, hence Opposite Party No.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 17.01.2019 of this District Consumer Commission, Moga.
3. Whereas, Opposite Parties No.2 to 4 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply taking certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that there is no contract between Complainant as well as Opposite Parties No.2 to 4 and therefore, in the absence of any contract, the allegations as regards deficiency in services are completely misconceived, further since there is no contract between the parties, therefore, the Complainant can not be termed as a consumer. It is admitted that the Complainant applied for house loan amounting to Rs.15 lakhs and in this regard submitted an application on 01.03.2018, but during the course of verification, it transpired that the Complainant has not fulfilled the requisites for technical and legal clearance of the property as the layout plan of the property submitted by the Complainant was not duly approved by the competent authority. The grant of loan is always subject to discretion of a financial institution and is based upon the technical and legal clearance of the property, therefore, it can never be claimed as matter o right and in the present case, this has been made clear in the fee retention letter duly signed by the Complainant and it is specifically mentioned that the loan approval is subject to legal and technical clearance of the property being financed. On merits, it is denied that the Opposite Parties No.2 to 4 got two blank cheques from the Complainant. Moreover, the processing fee as mentioned in the loan application form is non refundable and the plea of the Complainant that he was assured that the processing fee will be refunded in the event the loan is not sanctioned is totally misconceived and wrong. The Complainant is not entitled for the refund of the processing fee and the said condition was made clear to the Complainant and the Complainant has candidly admitted to the retention of processing fee. Moreover, the login of a file in the system not at all means that the loan is sanctioned, rather it means that the loan application form has been processed and is being forwarded for technical and legal clearance. Moreover, the Complainant has never submitted the approved building plan of the property against which the loan has to be sanctioned. The loan application form submitted by the Complainant was rejected for the reasons that the Complainant has failed to submit the approved building plan of the property and hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties No.2 to 4. All other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with special costs has been made.
4. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence the copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and Ex.C10 alongwith supporting affidavit Ex.C9 and closed his evidence.
5. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Parties No.2 to 4 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Aditya Kochar, Assistant Manager Ex.OP2 to 4/1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP2 to 4/2 to Ex.OP2 to 4/4 and closed the closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.
7. Ld.counsel for the complainant has reiterated the averments as narrated in the complaint and contended that the Complainant had to obtain house loan and on the allurement and assurance of Opposite Party No.1, he handed over the original property documents i.e. sale deed, salary slip, form-16 and other relevant documents to Opposite Party No.1 and he assured the Complainant that Opposite Parties will get sanction loan of Rs.15 lakhs in favour of the Complainant within a short period. Not only this, alongwith above referred original documents, the Complainant also handed over two blank signed cheques of his accounts lying in State Bank of India and Cooperative Bank to Opposite Party No.1. The Complainant alleges that thereafter, Opposite Party No.1 got completed entire paper formalities from him and applied for home loan. On 08.03.2018, the Complainant received a message on his mobile that his home loan file having No. 631469145 has been login and also a sum of Rs.5500/- as processing fee has been deducted from his saving bank account of Cooperative Bank, on 13.03.2018. Thereafter, on the demand of Opposite Party No.1, the Complainant also provided NEC from the concerned department by spending approximately Rs.1500/- and even at the instance of Opposite Party No.1, the Complainant got prepared/ approved site plan of his house as well as its valuation from the concerned department/ authority by spending approximately Rs.3000/- and all these documents were handed over to Opposite Party No.1 and after receiving all these documents, Opposite Party No.1 assured the Complainant that the loan will be sanctioned within a few days. Thereafter, the Complainant approached the Opposite Party No.1 time and again to confirm about the status of loan, but initially, the Opposite Party No.1 lingering on the matter on one pretext or another, but lateron started demanding a huge amount on account bribe to get the loan sanctioned. When, the Complainant refused to pay the bribe to Opposite Party No.1, then he in connivance with Opposite Parties No.2 to 4 rejected the home loan file on 31.03.2018 without any reasonable cause. Due to the above mentioned illegal act, the Complainant is suffering mental agony, harassment and financial loss and hence there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
8. On the other hand, ld.counsel for Opposite Parties No.2 to 4 has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the Complainant on the ground that there is no contract between Complainant as well as Opposite Parties No.2 to 4 and therefore, in the absence of any contract, the allegations as regards deficiency in services are completely misconceived, further since there is no contract between the parties, therefore, the Complainant can not be termed as a consumer. It is admitted that the Complainant applied for house loan amounting to Rs.15 lakhs and in this regard submitted an application on 01.03.2018, but during the course of verification, it transpired that the Complainant has not fulfilled the requisites for technical and legal clearance of the property as the layout plan of the property submitted by the Complainant was not duly approved by the competent authority. The grant of loan is always subject to discretion of a financial institution and is based upon the technical and legal clearance of the property, therefore, it can never be claimed as matter o right and in the present case, this has been made clear in the fee retention letter duly signed by the Complainant and it is specifically mentioned that the loan approval is subject to legal and technical clearance of the property being financed. On merits, it is denied that the Opposite Parties No.2 to 4 got two blank cheques from the Complainant. Moreover, the processing fee as mentioned in the loan application form is non refundable and the plea of the Complainant that he was assured that the processing fee will be refunded in the event the loan is not sanctioned is totally misconceived and wrong. The Complainant is not entitled for the refund of the processing fee and the said condition was made clear to the Complainant and the Complainant has candidly admitted to the retention of processing fee. Moreover, the login of a file in the system not at all means that the loan is sanctioned, rather it means that the loan application form has been processed and is being forwarded for technical and legal clearance. Moreover, the Complainant has never submitted the approved building plan of the property against which the loan has to be sanctioned. The loan application form submitted by the Complainant was rejected for the reasons that the Complainant has failed to submit the approved building plan of the property and contended that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties No.2 to 4.
9. However, on notice, Opposite Party No.1 has refused to accept the summons of this District Consumer Commission, Moga, so adverse inference has to be taken against him.
10. The case of the Complainant is crystal clear that for obtaining the house loan he has submitted the relevant documents to Opposite Party No.1 and also deposited the processing fee of Rs.5500/- which was deducted from his saving bank account on 13.03.2018, copy of passbook is Ex.C2. However, regarding other expenses for obtaining alleged Non Encumbrance Certificate (NEC) from the concerned department as well as Rs.1500/- for getting prepared/ approved site plan of his house as well as its valuation from the concerned department/ authority by spending approximately Rs.3000/-, the Complainant has failed to prove or produce any cogent and convincing evidence on the record.
11. With regard to contact between Complainant and Opposite Parties No.2 to 4, regarding sanction of the loan to the Complainant, it is undoubtedly, the grant of loan is always subject to discretion of a financial institution and is based upon the technical and legal clearance of the property, therefore, it can never be claimed as matter of right and in the present case, this has been made clear in the fee retention letter duly signed by the Complainant and it is specifically mentioned that the loan approval is subject to legal and technical clearance of the property being financed and hence, the Opposite Parties No.2 to 4 are not bound to sanction the loan to the Complainant for want of submission of the approved building plan of the property against which the loan has to be sanctioned and as such, we found that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties No.2 to 4 for not sanctioning the housing loan to the Complainant because the Complainant has failed to fulfil all the formalities such like submission of ‘approved building plan’ of the property against which the loan has to be sanctioned. Moreover, as per the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India, “the matters concerning the eligibility of parties to any credit assistance, viability of the project and continuation of the credit facilities or the operation of the account by any party, are within the discretion of the financial institution/bank depending upon various factors like financial discipline and past history of borrower and his ability to pay the loan , if such discretion is exercised bonafide.” In this regard, Hon’ble Karnatka State Commission, also held so in case titled as:- B.M.Suresh Kumar Vs. The Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, CPR1995 (I)747 (SCDRC - Karnataka)
12. However, with regard to liability of Opposite Party No.1, we feel that Opposite Party No.1 has definitely kept the Complainant in dark on whose allurement the Complainant submitted all the relevant documents for obtaining the house loan from Opposite Parties No.2 to 4 and deposited the processing fee of Rs.5500/- and rather despite defending allegations against him, Opposite Party No.1 darely thought not to appear before this District Consumer Commission, Moga to clear his stand and refused to accept the summons of this District Consumer Commission, Moga and was proceeded against exparte. On the other hand, to prove his case, the Complainant has placed on record his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C9 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and Ex.C10. The aforesaid evidence produced by the complainant has gone unrebutted and unchallenged through any cogent and convincing evidence on record by Opposite Party No.1, because Opposite Party No.1, despite proper service of summons, did not opt to appear and contest the proceedings. In this way, Opposite Party No.1 has impliedly admitted the correctness of the allegations made in the complaint against him. It also shows that Opposite Party No.1 has no defence to offer or defend the complaint.
13. So, from the entire unrebutted and unchallenged evidence produced by the complainant on record against Opposite Party No.1, it stands fully proved on record that the Opposite Party No.1 has kept the Complainant in dark who wanted to make money from the Complainant under the garb of bribe allegedly to be taken to Opposite Parties No.2 to 4 for the sanction loan, but when the Complainant refused to give the bribe, Opposite Party No.1 has refused to admit the rightful claim of the Complainant and as such, Opposite Party No.1 is definitely liable to make good the loss of the Complainant. The Complainant has contended that due to mental tension, harassment and financial loss, he suffered a lot and on this account, he claimed Rs.1 lakh as compensation, but the claim for compensation to the tune of Rs.One Lakh is concerned, the same appears to be exorbitant and excessive. The rationale behind grant of compensation has been to compensate a party of the loss occasioned by it. It is none of the intention of the legislature while legislating the Consumer Protection Act to enrich a particular party at the cost of the other. The compensation has to be awarded in commensuration with the loss occasioned to the complainant. In our considered view, ends of justice would be fully met if the complainant is awarded for the refund of Rs.5,500/- which was spent by him on account of processing fee for obtaining the house loan and we award the same accordingly.
14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we partly allow the complaint against Opposite Party No.1 (Sachin (D.S.A) son of Pawan Gara) and Opposite Party No.1 (Sachin (D.S.A) son of Pawan Gara) is directed to pay the amount of Rs.5,500/- (Rupees five thousands five hundred only) to the complainant, (which the Complainant spent on account of processing fee), alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 24.08.2018 till its actual realization. The complaint against Opposite Parties No.2 to 4 stands dismissed as there is no deficiency in service on their part. Compliance of this order be made by Opposite Party No.1 (Sachin (D.S.A) son of Pawan Gara) within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the Complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this Commission. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
15. Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.
This complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period because the government has not appointed any of the Whole Time Members in this Commission for about 3 years i.e. w.e.f. 15.09.2018 till 27.08.2021 as well as due to pandemic of COVID-19.
Announced in Open Commission.
Dated: 26.10.2021.
(Aparana Kundi) (Mohinder Singh Brar) (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Member Member President
