SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN, PRESIDENT. Complaint for realization of service charge collected from lthe complainant, compensation etc. The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows: The complainant and his wife are the joint owners of 6 cents of land comprised in re survey No.247 Sub Division No.48/3 of Kollam West Village with a small building situated therein. The complainant applied for a maintenance loan for the above building in the year 2004. Since he got expert opinion that doing maintenance is impractical applied to opp.party 1 for a loan for the construction of a new building therein . He remitted service charge of Rs.1250/-. The officers of the opp.party visited the plot and it was informed that the loan was sanctioned. But no intimation was received in writing. Since the loan was sanctioned the complainant proceeded to construct the building and cut down 3 trees standing in the proposed site. For receiving the sanctioned loan amount when the complainant approached the first opp.party he told the complainant that his application has been rejected, n the ground that there is no cartable way to the property. The opp.party have collected service charge from the complainant without rendering any service to the complainant and the complainant sustained loss of Rs.5,000/- for collecting necessary documents to apply for the loan. Due to the cutting and removal of trees in proposed site he has sustained huge loss. Since the loan was not disbursed he has to abandon the construction of the building. Hence the complaint. The opp.party filed version contending, interalia, that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The averments in para 2 of the complaint is not fully correct. It is true that the complainants approached the first opp.party for the purpose of securing a housing loan of Rs.3,00,000/- The complainant and his wife submitted application for home loan for the purpose of construction of a new building in their property comprised in Re.Sy No.247 sub division 48/3 having an extent of 2.43 Ares situated in Kollam West Village along with the necessary document and title deeds of the property. Thereupon the file was opened and after processing servicing charges of a sum of Rs. 1250/- was collected. The sanction and disbursement of housing loans are totally a prerogative of the HDFC based on three aspects being credit legal and technical appraisal on the quality of the loan applied. After verification of address, employment details, source of income and after scrutinizing the title deed it was found that the complainant was eligible for a loan amount of Rs.25 lakhs and accordingly issued sanction offer letter dated 19.12.2005 to the complainant . After that the 2nd opp.party was deputed for having the local site inspection and submission of legal and technical clearance report to the first opp.party. The 2nd opp.party visited the said property of the complainants on 6.1.2006 and reported the xistence of a RCC roofed building bearing No.XXIX/80B in that property and that there is no vehicular access to the property except a narrow pathway. Under these circumstances the first opp.party was unable to disburse the loan sanctioned. Inspite of it, the first opp.party personally discussed these aspects with the complainants when they visited the office and by exercising the discretion suggested to them to submit a revised estimate of the loan requirement as well as a letter for converting the home loan into Home improvement loan Though he agreed to do so and informed that they will come to the branch office. But the complainants thereafter never turned up . The first opp.party had not rejected nor closed the loan application till this date and the allegations to the contrary is utter falsehood. The allegation in para 3 that the first opp.party’s officers visited several times the proposed property of the complainant are absolutely false and denied It is also not known to the opp.parties whether any trees has been cut down or not by the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party. Hence the opp.parties prays to dismiss the complaint. Points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties 2. Reliefs and costs. For the complainant PW.1 to 3 are examined. Ext. P1 is marked For the opp.parties DW.1 is examined. Ext. D1 to D4 are marked. POINTS: There is no dispute that the complainant has applied for a housing loan to the opp.party and that a loan of Rs. 2.5 lakhs has been sanctioned on 19.12.2005. The contention of the complainant is that after knowing about sanction of the loan he has started preliminary work such as cutting down trees and preparing the site for the construction of basement and when he approached the opp.party for availing the loan he was informed without any reason that the loan was cancelled. It was known that the loan was refused on the basis of a report of opp.party 2 to the effect that there is a RCC roofed building in the proposed land and that there is no cartable way to the property. The contention of the complainant is that after receiving service charges from him the opp.parties failed to render service to him which is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties. The opp.parties admitted that they have collected service charges of Rs.1250/- from the complainant and they have conducted necessary enquiries with regard to the credit worthiness, employment details, source of income etc of the complainant and based on the income status of the complainant and his wife a sum of of Rs.2.5 laks was sanctioned towards housing loan and information in this regard given to the complainant. But subsequent to that they have deputed the 2nd opp.party for site inspection and the 2nd opp.party after visiting the property of the complainant reported that an R.C.C roofed building bearing No.XXIX/80B is situating in the proposed land and that there is no vehicular access to the property except a narrow pathway. Under such circumstances the first opp.party was unable to disburse the loan sanctioned to the complainant. As a matter of fact the report alleged to have been filed by the 2nd opp.party was not produced. The 2nd opp.party has also did not turn up to tender evidence. DW.1 admitted that after the verification of the credit worthiness etc of the complainant they have issued sanction offer letter to the complainant and it is thereafter that the 2nd opp.party was deputed for site inspection. One is at a loss to understand why the loan was sanctioned without inspecting the site. Usually loan is sanctioned after completing all formalities including the site inspection . Every prudent person would start construction of building when loan is sanctioned. The complainant has proceeded to construct the building by cutting down trees and also made preparations for the construction of basement and foundation is corroborated by PWs 2 and 3 . As argued by the learned counsel for the complainant had the opp.parties refused loan the complainant would not have spent money for cutting down the trees and prepared the land for the construction of basement and foundation. The conduct of the opp.parties in sanctioning the loan and thereafter canceling the same on flimsy grounds is nothing but deficiency in service on their part. The contention of PW.1 regarding the expenses incurred by him to cut down the trees and preparing the site is corroborated by the PW.2 and 3 also Nothing has been produced before us to show that the owner of a property having no vehicular access is not entitled to get the loan from the opp.party. It is also worth pointing out in this context that after all .the loan sanctioned is a paltry sum of 2.5 lakhs. It is true that the opp.parties have every right to sanction or refuse to sanction loan when an application is received but canceling the loan after sanctioning the same and that too without any valid reason is unjustifiable and the party affected is entitled to get compensation . For all that has been discussed above we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party In the result the complaint is allowed in part, we direct the opp.party to repay the complainant the service charges of Rs.1250/- with interest at 12% per annum from 22.11.2005. The opp.parties are also direct to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and costs. The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of this order. Dated this the 30th day of April, 2010 . I N D E X List of witnesses for the complainant PW.1. – Benjamin.P. PW.2. – Joshwa PW.3. – Sadanandan List of documents for the complainant P1. – Site plan List of witnesses for the opp.parties DW.1. - Sreekumaran Nair List of documents for the opp.parties D1. – Application form D2. – Verification report D3. – Sanction letter D4. – Building abstract | 
