Karnataka

Kolar

CC/87/2018

Sri.P.L.Venugopal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri.Jayaprakash - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.Suman.K

29 Mar 2019

ORDER

Date of Filing: 29.10.2018

Date of Order: 29.03.2019

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 29^TH DAY OF MARCH 2019

PRESENT

SRI. K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA, B.Sc., LLB., PRESIDENT

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL, LLB.,  ……  LADY MEMBER

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 87 OF 2018

Sri.P.L. Venugopal,

S/o. P.N. Lakshmipathi,

Aged About 36 Years,

 Occu: Business & Medical

Agency Distributer,

R/at: Kamadenahalli Village & Post,

Kasaba Hobli, Kolar Taluk & District.                           ….  COMPLAINANT.

(Rep. by Sri. Suman.K, Advocate)

 

- V/s –

1) Sri. Jayaprakash,

The Manager,

Divan Housing Finance Corporation

Limited, Opp. KSRTC Bus Stand,

Near Muttot Finance Company, Kolar.

(Rep. by Sri. C.M. Niranjana Swamy, Advocate)

 

2) Sri.M.Chowdappa,

Aged About 32 Years,

Field Officer, Divan Housing

Finance Corporation Limited,

Yaldur Village, Holur Hobli.

(Exparte)

 

3) The Manager,

Divan Housing Finance Corporation Limited,

Head Office, G.V.R. Complex,

Bagalur Main Road, Bangalore.

(Rep. by Sri. C.M. Niranjana Swamy, Advocate)              …. OPPOSITE PARTIES.

ORDER

BY SRI. K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA, PRESIDENT

01.   The complainant has filed this complaint against opposite parties and prays to direct the OPs to sanction the loan amount to the complainant as agreed by them and to pay the expenses of Rs.1,30,000/- spent by him and to pass such other orders which deems to be fit in the circumstances of the case.

02.   The brief facts of the complainant case is that, OP No.1 and OP No.3 are the Managers of Kolar Branch Office and Bangalore Head Office respectively and OP No.2 is the Field Officer of Divan Housing Finance Corporation Limited, Kolar Branch.  The complainant has applied for loan of Rs.20,00,000/- from OP Nos.1 & 2 for purchase of site.  After verifying all the documents, OP Nos.1 & 2 have sanctioned the loan and the OPs have insisted the complainant to deposit 1% of the loan amount and other expenses of Rs.24,000/- in favour of Divan Housing Finance Corporation Limited through D.D.  The complainant paid the same through D.D. vide No.374601 on 21.10.2017 to the OP corporation.  The OP further insisted the complainant to pay other expenses of Rs.6,000/- and he has paid to the OP Nos.1 and 2 through cheque dated: 27.09.2017 and 25.05.2018.  The complainant further contended that, OP Nos.1 & 2 has further insisted him to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for granting loan and other expenses.  As the complainant required the loan and he has no other option and paid the said amount to OP Nos.1 & 2 at the time of granting of loan.  The complainant believing the assurance of the OP Nos.1 & 2, has entered in to an agreement with respect to two sites with one K.J. Babu Mouni.  The vendor of the site has demanded the complainant to get the registered sale deed by giving remaining sale consideration.  The OPs have not given/transferred the loan amount in favour of the complainant in spite of several requests and demands made by him and drag-on the matter and finally OPs have refused to give loan.  The complainant has given legal notice to OP Nos.1 & 2 dated: 14.09.2018.  The notice was served to OP No.1 on 15.09.2018 and OP No.2 refused to receive the notice.  The OPs did not send any reply.  The complainant has produced relevant documents for perusal of the Hon’ble forum and prays to issue direction to OPs.

03.   The complainant has filed the following documents along the complaint:-

(i) Copy of Agreement dt: 31.10.2017 – Document No.1

(ii) Copy of Bank statement 06 in Nos – Document No.2

(iii) Copy of Demand Draft – Document No.3

(iv) Original Letter of Indemnity for issue of duplicate Demand Draft – Document No.4.

(v) Office Copy of Legal Notice with postal receipts, acknowledgment & returned postal cover – Document No.5.

 

04.   In response to the notice, OP Nos.1 and 3 appeared through their counsel.  OP No.2 did not appear before the Forum in spite of service of notice and he has been placed exparte.

05.   OP No.1 filed their written statement on his behalf and on behalf of OP No.3 and contended that, OP No.3 has given power of attorney to him to represent his case by OP No.1.  The said OPs have contended that, the complainant had applied for availing loan for Rs.20,00,000/- from the OP No.3.  The complainant submitted documents for processing of the loan and during verification of the documents it was learnt that, the complainant has submitted manipulated income tax certificate for the year 2015-16 and 2016-17 when the same was cross-verified with the income tax department and the loan of the complainant was rejected.  In pursuance of the said loan the complainant was asked to deposit documents and on the basis of which the loan was to be sanctioned and subsequently sanctioned letter dated: 16.10.2017 was issued to the complainant.  The said sanction letter would be confirmed only after the documents submitted were verified thoroughly.  The documents were put through legal and technical scrutiny in order to ascertain the repayment capacity and asset mortgagory value, before disbursement of the loan.  The OP Nos.1 & 3 further contended that, at the time of issuing the sanctioning letter, the processing fees to be charged for conducting the due legal, technical and credit verification of any customer is informed to the complainant.  In the sanction letter it was specifically informed that, a sum of Rs.34,692/- is to be charged towards processing fees and against the said sum, the complainant has paid Rs.3,000/- towards initial processing fees and Rs.24,000/- subsequently was deposited towards processing fee.  And after adjusting the same a sum of Rs.7,692/- is still pending towards processing fees.  The complainant approached OP No.3 to avail loan in the month of April/May-2018 and against the said application paid Rs.3,000/- towards initial processing fee.  The allegation at Para-2 that, OP No.1 insisted to pay Rs.1,00,000/- for grant of loan and towards other expenses is specifically denied.  The allegation pertaining to OP No.2 are beyond the scope and have no knowledge of these OPs.  The allegation of the complainant against OP No.2 is a matter of dispute between OP No.2 and the complainant.  The statement of accounts of the complainant clearly shows that, no payment has been received by the company and the said allegations of the complainant against OP Nos.1 & 3 are baseless.  The loan amount was not disbursed on a strict perusal of the documents of the complainant was learnt that, the complainant has submitted a manipulated income tax certificates.  As per the terms and conditions for sanctioning of loan the complainant was required to submit the income proof for the last three years from the date of loan application, address proof, legal scrutiny report for vacant site.  After submission of the same and due verification being undertaken, it was learnt that, the income tax return certificates filed by the complainant with the income tax department for the assessment year 2015-16 and 2016-17 were manipulated and the same is found on verifying before the Department of Income Tax and the loan was declined on this ground.  These OPs are also denied about the cause of action.  The complainant himself is responsible for the rejection of his loan.  These OPs were further contended that, the complaint is non-joinder of necessary party.  The complainant has filed this complaint on names of individuals and not on the positions of the opponents and they are nothing to do with the above case.  The complainant was well aware of the processing fee which is paid at 1.5% on the loan amount is non-refundable.  The complainant is going against the terms and conditions and the complaint is not maintainable and the question of granting loan to the complainant does not arise.  The complainant is also not a Consumer as defined Under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays for dismissal of the complaint with costs in the ends of justice.

06.   On 15.02.2019 counsel for complainant has filed affidavit evidence of complainant by way of examination-in-chief and on 08.03.2019 counsel appearing for OP No.3 has filed affidavit evidence of one Sri. N.K. Aiyanna, Chief Manager Leal DHFL and also an authorized representative by way of examination-in-chief. 

07.   On 19.03.2019 counsel for OP Nos.1 & 3 has submitted following List of documents:-

(i) GPA dated: 12.11.2013

(ii) Loan Application Form

(iii) Report of DHFL RLU Report

(iv) Sanction Letter dated:

 

08.   On 21.03.2019 counsel for complainant has submitted a Memo with copies of income tax reports for the years 31^st December 2013, 10^th November 2014, 16^th March 2015, 22^nd May 2015, 05^th December 2016, 05^th July 2017 and 23^rd August 2018. 

 

09.   Heard oral arguments on both sides.

 

10.   Now the points that do arise for our consideration are that:-

(1) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of OP Nos.1 to 3?

 

(2) Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in the complaint?

 

(3) What order?

 

11.   Our findings on the above stated points are:-

POINT (1) & (2):-      In the Negative

       

POINT (3):-      As per the final order

for the following:-

REASONS

12.   POINTS (1) & (2):-

These points are taken up together for discussion to avoid repetition of facts and reasonings.  We have perused the complaint, version, affidavit evidence and documents produced by both complainant and OP Nos.1 & 3.  The complainant has filed this complaint against the OPs and prays to direct the OPs to sanction the loan amount to the complainant as agreed by them and to pay the expenses of Rs.1,30,000/- spent by him and to pass such other orders which deems to be fit in the circumstances of the case.

13.   The complainant has approached the OP No.3 for grant of loan of Rs.20,00,000/- for purchase of site and after verifying all the documents loan was sanctioned and insisted the complainant to deposit 1% of the loan amount and other expenses of Rs.24,000/- through D.D. in favour of Divan Housing Finance Corporation Limited.  The complainant has paid the said amount through D.D. vide No.374601, dated: 21.10.2017 to the OP company and further insisted to pay Rs.6,000/- and he has paid the said amount through cheque dated: 27.09.2017 and 25.05.2018.  The OP Nos.1 & 3 further insisted the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for grant of loan and other expenses and he has paid the said amount to OP Nos.1 & 3.  And the OPs have not transferred the loan amount in spite of repeated requests and demands.  On the other hand the OP Nos.1 & 3 have specifically denied payment of Rs.1,00,000/- to the OP Company and specifically contended that, the statement of accounts of the complainant clearly shows that, no payment has been received by the OP Company and also contended that, in the sanctioned letter it was informed that, a sum of Rs.34,692/- is to be charged towards processing fee and the complainant has paid Rs.3,000/- towards initial processing fee and subsequently deposited Rs.24,000/- and after adjusting the same a sum of Rs.7,692/- is still pending towards the processing fee.  And during April/May-2018 against the said loan application the complainant has paid Rs.3,000/- towards initial processing fee. 

14.   On perusal of the above said material facts there is no dispute that, the complainant approached the OP company for availing loan of Rs.20,00,000/- towards purchase of a site and in that regard the complainant has produced Agreement of Sale as per Document No.1, the complainant’s Bank Account Extract as per Document No.2 for payment of Rs.24,100/- on 21.10.2017 and also payment of Rs.3,000/- on 27.09.2017 and 25.05.2018 and the legal notice as per Document No.5.  On perusal of the said documents it reveals that, the complainant has paid only Rs.30,100/- as against Rs.34,692/-.  The complainant is due of Rs.4,592/- and further the complainant has not stated about details of the amount spent and not produced any documents for claiming Rs.1,30,000/- towards expenses and it is bald statement.   

15.   Further at this stage it is pertinent to state here that, the said OPs have specifically contended that, after submission of the documents, they came to know that, the Income Tax return certificate filed by the complainant with the Income Tax Department for the assessment year 2015-16 and 2016-17 were manipulated and the same is found on verifying before the department of Income Tax and loan was declined on this ground.  And to that effect, the OP Nos.1 & 3 has produced copy of the DHFL RCU Report.  Now it is relevant to state here that, whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed by him.  In that regard it is relevant to peruse Annexure-C, the Tariff Schedule annexed to the application.  Wherein, it is clearly mentioned that, Processing Fees (Housing Loan) and application letter fee (mortgaged loan) are non-refundable.  The counsel for complainant has vehemently argued that 1% of the loan application value is to be refundable, but on perusal of the said Tariff Schedule 1% of loan application value – Mortgage Loan is processing fee and is non-refundable and hence the said arguments of the complainant is goes in vain.  As the said application was signed by the complainant and his wife and the said fact was known to the complainant as on the date of filing of the said loan application and hence there is no any deficiency of service on the part of the OPs as the loan facility is not granted to the complainant and the complainant is not entitled for any relief against OPs.  In this regard, we relay Hon’ble National Commission Judgment reported in 2015(1) CPJ Page-314 and 1992(3) CPJ Page-61 (NC).  The principles of the said citations are attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand.  

16.   Further it is relevant to state here that, on perusal of the complaint the complaint is filed against individual persons on OP Nos.1 & 2 such being so, the complaint is also not maintainable and they are nothing to do with the above said case and the question of granting relief to the complainant does not arise from the individual capacity.

17.   In view of the above discussions, we come to the conclusion that, the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed by him and the complainant has failed to prove point Nos.1 & 2 and hence the said two Points are answered in the Negative.

18.   POINT (3):-

In view of our findings on Point Nos.1 & 2 and the discussion made thereon, we proceed to pass the following:-

 

ORDER

01.   The complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed.  No order as to costs.

02.   Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 29^th DAY OF MARCH 2019)

 

 

 

 

   LADY MEMBER                            PRESIDENT