THE KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.415/12
JUDGEMENT DATED : 03.05.2013
PRESENT :
SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT.A.RADHA : MEMBER
N.P.Shamsudheen,
Kaser-A1- Naseema,
S.S.Road, Kuzhippangad, APPELLANT
Thalassery, Kannur - 670102
(Adv.Saji.S.L & K.T.Syham kumar)
v/S
1. The Senior Divisional Manager,
LIC Home Loan,
Bombay Life Building,
45/47, Veer Nariman Road,
Fort Mumbai, RESPONDENTS
Maharashtra, Pin – 400001
2. The Area Manager,
LIC Home Loan, Area Office,
Royal Palace,
Railway Station Link Road,
Kozhikode, Pin - 673002
(Adv.Asokkumar.J.S)
JUDGMENT
SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
The appellant was the complainant in CC.No.382/2011 in the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur. It appears that the complainant approached the opposite parties and applied for granting a loan of Rupees. one crore and he paid Rupees two Lakhs as processing fee for granting the loan. It is alleged that on the assurance of granting loan he started construction of his house. He could not complete the construction according to his planning. The complainant was informed in 2005 that his loan application was rejected. But no reason was stated. The documents and process fee paid have not been returned to him. The complaint was filed in 2011 beyond two years from the date on which the cause of action arose. Hence he filed application to condone the delay in filing the complaint. The sufficient cause alleged was that he was laid up and was suffering from cardiac problems and was under treatment for a long time. Since medication could not cure his illness, he was subjected to bypass surgery and was discharged from the hospital on 19.09.2009. After discharge also he was constrained to continue the treatment. Therefore he was not able to approach the Forum on time. Hence he prayed that the delay in filing the complaint may be condoned.
The opposite parties contended that the allegations that the complainant was laid up, that he was suffering from cardiac problems and was under medication for a long time etc are not correct. The complainant had applied for a housing loan of Rupees.one crore and a loan of Rs. One crore was sanctioned ‘in principle’. A non refundable upfront fee of AED 8000 equivalent to Rupees One Lakh was paid by him at Dubai office. Since the property is situates at Thalassery, the application was referred to Area Office, Kozhikkode for further action. On enquiry it was found that the property did not conform to the technical and legal standards prescribed by LIC Housing Finance Limited. Hence the loan was rejected. There is no sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the application.
It is seen that oral evidence of the complainant was adduced in support of the application for condonation of delay and certain documents were produced. The Forum considered the documents marked as Exts. A1 and A2 series and oral evidence and held that there was no satisfactory evidence to establish that the complainant was prevented from filing the complaint on time. Accordingly the Forum dismissed the application for the condonation of delay and consequently the complaint itself. Hence the appeal by the complainant.
The only question that arises for consideration is whether the appellant has succeeded in establishing that he was prevented from filing the complaint within time for sufficient reasons.
Admittedly, the complainant had applied for a Housing loan of Rupees. One Crore and in 2005 itself he was informed that the loan application was rejected. According to the complainant he had paid a process fee of Rupees.Two Lakhs for considering his loan application. This is not admitted and according to the opposite parties what was paid was non refundable upfront fee of AED 8000 which was equivalent to Rupees.One Lakh only. Deficiency in service is alleged because the opposite parties had failed to return the process fee and the documents produced by him. According to the opposite parties the application for loan was rejected as the property of the complainant situated at Thalassery was found not to conform to the technical and legal standards prescribed by the LIC Housing Finance Limited. This aspect did not arise for adjudication before the Forum and doesn’t arise for adjudication here also. It is seen that the complaint is filed only on 20.12.2011. So the complaint was filed with a delay of about four years. It ought to have been filed within two years from 2005. The allegation to explain the delay is that the complainant was suffering from cardiac problems and was under treatment for a long time. Since he didn’t recover by medication bypass surgery was conducted in 2009. Even after that he continued to be on medication. The documents produced do not show that he was under treatment prior to 2009. So the delay up to this period is not attempted to be explained by any evidence. The complainant has thus failed to explain each and every days delay in filing the complaint. On the contrary, what was deposed was that after 2005 he came to India and has returned to Dubai apparently several times. There is no explanation why he failed to arrange the filing of the complaint during such visits. Obviously, he was able to travel from Dubai to Kerala. But be couldn’t arrange the filing of the complaint on time. The conclusion of the Forum that there was no sufficient cause for the delay in filing the complaint is fully justified in the background of the circumstances explained above. Hence the appeal is devoid of merit.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed but without costs.
K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
A. RADHA : MEMBER
be/
