CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

UDYOG SADAN, C-22 & 23, QUTUB INSTITUTIONAL AREA

(BEHIND QUTUB HOTEL) : NEW DELHI – 110016.

                                                                                                  Case No. 1242/05

1.     Amit Gupta

        S/o Mr. J.B. Gupta,

        R/o B-501, Sagar Apts.,

        Plot No. – C58/15, Sector-62,

        Noida, Dist. Gautam Budh Nagar.

2.     Ms. Sangya Gupta,                

        W/o Mr. Amit Gupta

        R/o B-501, Sagar Apts.,

        Plot No. – C58/15, Sector-62,

        Noida, Dist. Gautam Budh Nagar.      - Complainants

Vs

1. Standard Chartered Bank,

    Mortgages North,

    17, Parliament Street,

    New Delhi – 110001.

2. The Chairman,       

    Mortgages North,

    Standard Chartered Bank,

    17, Parliament Street,

    New Delhi – 110001.

3. Manager

    Home Loan,

    Standard Chartered Bank,

    17, Parliament Street,

    New Delhi – 110001.                                - Opposite Parties

                                                               Date of Institution: 9.8.2005        Date of decision:   07.05.2015

Coram:

Sh. N.K. Goel, President

Ms. Anjum Parveen Alam, Member

                                      O R D E R

Sh. N.K. Goel, President

          The  complainants’  case,  in brief,  is  that  in  order  to pay 8

Case No. 1242/05

instalments  of Rs. 23,45,000/- of a flat allotted to him  by a Housing Society he applied for housing loan with the OPs and deposited the processing fee of Rs. 16,000/- by means of an Account Payee cheque drawn in favour of OP-1.  He was sanctioned a loan of Rs. 16 Lacs and an intimation to this effect was given to him by the OPs. Despite the sanctioning of the loan, the OPs did not disburse the loan to him which resulted into cancellation of his membership in the Group Housing Society.  The OPs did not take any action despite service of legal notice dated 23.11.04.  Hence, pleading deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, complainant has filed the present complaint for directing the OPs to refund the process fee of Rs. 16,000/- together with interest @ 18% p.a., to pay damages of Rs. 5 lacs for causing financial loss, loss of opportunity of obtaining house and physical and mental torture, Rs. 5 Lacs for loosing the membership of the society and the opportunity of acquiring flat in the society, Rs. 2 Lacs for causing mental agony and physical torture and interest @ 18% p.a.

        In their reply, the OPs have stated that the complainants have not filed the legible copy of the sanction letter despite various requests made on their behalf nor they have brought the original letter sent by the OPs to them on the record and hence, in the absence of the reference number on the sanction letter, it was not possible  to  trace  out  the  record.   It  is  stated  that  from a bare

Case No. 1242/05

perusal of the copy of the sanction letter i.e. Annexure V to the complaint, it would reveal that the name, address of the addressee as well as the other particulars on the said letter are illegible and incomprehensible.  Under these circumstances, the complainant has no occasion to perceive/believe that a loan has been sanctioned to him as it is possible that the letter may be addressed to some other person and not to the complainants. It is stated that in view of the above, the grievance of the complainants that despite sanctioning of a loan the loan was not disbursed to them is not maintainable and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  So far as the  payment of Rs. 16,000/- by means of an Account Payee cheque to the OPs towards process fee is concerned, the OPs have stated that the complainants have neither given any particulars of the said cheque nor have submitted any proof to this effect.  It is stated that the sanctioning of a loan is subject to fulfillment of certain terms and conditions which are printed at the bottom of the sanction letter and this is why the first sanction letter is of sanctioning of loan in principle; that in the present case also the special condition subject to which the sanctioning was to be confirmed is mentioned at the bottom but it is not legible.  A sample of the sanction letter being issued by OPs is filed as Annexure A.  it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

Case No. 1242/05

        In the rejoinder, the complainants have given the details of the payment of Rs. 16,000/- towards the process fee vide Pay Order No. 746403 dated 6.7.2004 drawn on Citizen Cooperative Bank Ltd., Noida.

        Complainant-2 has filed her affidavit in evidence.  On the other hand,  affidavit  of  Ms. Nidhi Das, Constituted Attorney has been filed on  behalf of OPs.  It is not out of place to mention here that in her affidavit Complainant No. 2 has marked certain documents as Exh. CW2/1 to Exh. CW2/6 but has not put the exhibit numbers on the corresponding documents. Exh. CW2/5 is the copy of intimation letter stated to have been issued by the OPs to the complainants for sanction of housing loan of Rs. 16 Lacs.  The same has been filed with the complaint as Annexure V.  Therefore, we proceed to decide the case.

        Written arguments have been filed on behalf of both the parties.

        We have gone through the file very carefully.

         Annexure V is not a legible and readable document.  No one can read this document.  The complainants must  having the alleged sanction letter in original in their possession.  However, they have not filed the original sanction letter or legible copy thereof on the record.  Adverse presumption is drawn against the complainants.   Therefore,    the     amount    of    the     housing    loan,    if    any,

Case No. 1242/05

and terms and conditions subject to which it was issued to the complainants have not become clear.  It is not possible to draw any conclusion from such a vague document which is the sole basis of filing the present complaint.  When the foundation of the case in itself is weak, the case itself is liable to fall.  A copy of the sample sanction letter has been filed as Annexure A.  It contains some terms and conditions on the back of it.  In her affidavit, the witness of the OP has even denied that any loan had been sanctioned to the complainants.  The onus to prove that the housing loan had in fact been disbursed to the complainants by the OPs was on the complainants but, however, they have failed to discharge  their burden.  Therefore, we hold that complaint does not disclose any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

        In view of the above discussion, we hold that the complaint is devoid of any merit.  We dismiss it accordingly with no order as to costs.

        Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations.  Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on  07.05.15.