Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/1366/2015

Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sanwatram Meena s/o Bhura Ram - Opp.Party(s)

A.S.Rathore

28 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 1366 /2015

 

HDFC Ltd. its previous office at O-19-A Ashok Marg, C-Scheme,Jaipur its present office at C-25 Bhagwan Das Road, Opp.St.Xavier School,C-Scheme,Jaipur & ors.

Vs.

Sanwatram Meena r/o Raiwasa via Ranoli, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, Distt. Sikar, Rajasthan.

 

Date of Order 28.3.2016

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mrs. Sunita Ranka -Member

 

Mr.A.S.Rathore counsel for the appellants

Mr.Mukesh Kumar Pareek counsel for the respondent

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the

 

2

 

learned DCF, Sikar dated 2.9.2015.

 

The contention of the appellant is that disbursement of loan has rightly been disallowed as the complainant-respondent has not fulfilled the condition of providing registered Patta before disbursement and process fees is not refundable. The complainant-respondent himself has entered into a declaration that fees paid by him are not refundable and further more the contention of the appellant is that when process charges has been utilized in processing the application, they are not deficient in service.

 

During course of arguments it has frankly been admitted by the counsel for the appellant that they are ready to refund the stamp duty i.e. Rs.1250/- to the respondent.

 

Per contra the contention of the respondent is that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and no interference is needed.

 

Heard the counsel for the parties and respondent in person and perused the impugned judgment as well as the original record of the case.

3

 

The letter dated 11.3.2013 by which a loan has been principally approved by the appellant clearly speaks vide condition no. 7 that the registered Patta should be provided before the disbursement which has not been done by the respondent hence, the loan could not be disbursed.

 

It is not in dispute that the process fees has been charged from the respondent but when application has been processed there was no occasion for the appellant to refund it and the appellant has rightly relied upon the judgment of the Hon;ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 2107/2010 HDFC Bank Ltd. & anr. Vs. Babulal Gupta decided on 23.2.2011 where it has been held that the bank was not legally bound to refund the process fees as it has been utilized in processing the application. In view of this,the order of the Forum below as regard to refund of processing fees suffers from infirmity.

 

As regard stamp duty when the loan has not been sanctioned, it should not have been charged and should have been refunded immediately. Now the appellant is ready to refund the stamp duty hence, the appeal is allowed partially.

 

4

 

The contention of the appellant is that compensation of Rs. 5000/- for mental agony is on higher side. As the stamp duty has been charged unnecessarily and thereafter not refunded immediately is deficiency on the part of the appellant. The compensation and cost of proceedings has rightly been allowed and it needs no interference.

 

In view of the above, the appeal is partially allowed. The order as regard to refund of process fees Rs. 7025/- is set aside whereas the respondent is entitled to have refund of stamp duty of Rs.1250/- with interest as ordered by the Forum below. Order as regard to compensation and cost of proceedings is also confirmed.

 

(Sunita Ranka) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

nm