Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/480/2021

RAVI CHOUDHARY - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI - Opp.Party(s)

RAVI CHOUDHARY

20 Sep 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/480/2021
Date of Institution	:	16/07/2021
Date of Decision	:	20/09/2024

       

                                       

                       

 

 

 

Ravi Choudhary s/o Sh. Shish Pal Singh r/o H.No.31/Type-II, Panjab University Residential Complex, Chandigarh.

                                ...  Complainant

Versus

State Bank of India through AGM, RACPC Zonal Office, State Bank of India, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh.

…. Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:
	SHRI AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU	PRESIDENT
	SMT. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY:-
	Complainant in person (through VC)
	Sh. Nitin Gupta, Counsel for OP (through VC)

       

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT

1.        The complainant has filed the present consumer complaint alleging that he had filed an application for availing home loan from OP and as per process adopted by OP, he was asked to submit two signed cheques in lieu of payment of legal verification and valuation of complainant’s property.  The home loan application of the complainant was kept pending for a number of days due to the reason that the property was located outside Chandigarh and for that reason even the empanelled advocate appointed by the OP also refused to conduct the legal verification of the documents. Thereafter, the OP asked the complainant to get the legal verification and valuation of the property done through the empanelled advocate and valuer of bank from Sonepat.  Accordingly, complainant contacted the empanelled advocate namely Sh.S.K. Jain and got completed the required formalities to further his application for Home Loan on behalf of the bank and he also made payment of fee as per schedule of rates provided by the bank. Thereafter, home loan application of the complainant was approved and loan was sanctioned in his favour. The complainant apprised the concerned officials of the OP bank regarding payment of fee in cash to the legal and valuation expert. Surprisingly, the OP, without any instructions, deducted an amount of ₹6,628/- from the complainant’s saving account. The complainant immediately contacted the bank upon which he was informed that the payment was made to the empanelled advocate vide cheque dated 15.1.2019 for conducting legal verification of the property. The complainant, thereafter, contacted the OP and apprised them regarding the incident but it failed to do anything despite service of legal notice dated 2.7.2021.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP, complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint for refund of amount of ₹6,628/- alongwith interest and compensation.
2.        In its written version OP, inter alia, took preliminary objection that the consumer complaint is barred by limitation.  It is averred that since, as per the loan documents signed by the complainant, all legal and other expenses like solicitor’s and lawyer’s fee, valuer’s fee etc. incurred in connection with the loan were to be borne by the complainant, OP had rightly taken the two signed cheques from the complainant for payment of legal/title verification report fee to the paneled advocate and property valuation report fee to the panelled valuer of the bank.  The OP appointed the empanelled advocate and valuer and obtained their respective reports with respect to the property of the complainant and he was never asked to get the legal verification and valuation reports.  It is denied that the complainant paid any fees directly to the panelled advocate and valuer in cash towards legal verification and valuation report. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP prayed for dismissal of the consumer complaint.
3.        The complainant chose not to file replication.
4.        The parties filed their respective affidavits and documents in support of their case.
5.        We have heard the complainant in person, learned Counsel for the OP and have gone through the documents on record, including written arguments.
6.        The main question involved in the present consumer complaint is whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP while deducting amount from the savings account of the complainant?

              In order to find out answer to the above mentioned question, it is necessary to discuss the following facts and circumstances.

7.        It is observed from the record that the complainant intended to avail home loan from the OP.  However, since the property in question was located outside Chandigarh, therefore, the empanelled Advocate of the OP refused to conduct legal verification and valuation of the property.  Accordingly, the complainant got the same done at his own through empanelled advocate, Sh. S.K. Jain and valuer of the bank by paying fee in cash to him. 
8.        It is the case of the complainant that though the OP did not provide any service to him regarding the legal valuation of the property, which was situated outside Chandigarh yet the OP deducted an amount of ₹6,628/- from his account.  On the other hand, the defence of the OP is that it has rightly charged the said amount because as per the terms & conditions agreed between the parties, complainant was required to pay the same.   
9.        However, the OP has miserably failed to place on record any report of the verification or valuation done by its empanelled advocate or any documentary evidence in the shape of receipt/voucher etc. showing to whom it had made the said payment of ₹6,628/- to prove that the entire services were provided by it.  The OP is a leading bank and must be maintaining proper record and the burden to prove the same lies entirely on its shoulders, but it has not produced any evidence to substantiate its defence.  Hence, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, adverse inference has to be drawn against the OP.  
10.        Once it is proved that the OP has not provided any service to the complainant, it should not have charged any fee/charges from the complainant qua the same.  As such, it is safe to hold that the act of the OP in illegally and arbitrarily debiting ₹6,628/- from the account of the complainant certainly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part.
11.        So far as the objection taken by the OP that the consumer complaint is barred by limitation is concerned, the same does not survive in view of the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020 reported in II (2021) SLT 66 regarding cognizance for extension of limitation.
12.        In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OP is directed to refund the debited amount of ₹6,628/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of debit till the date of its actual realization. OP shall also pay lump sum compensation of ₹10,000/- to the complainant for the harassment caused to him.
13.        This order be complied with by the OP within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy.
14.        The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
15.        Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced 20/09/2024 hg	[AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU] PRESIDENT
	[SURJEET KAUR] MEMBER