Per Justice Sham Sunder , President This appeal is directed against the order dated 9.3.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum only), vide which it dismissed the complaint of the complainant (now appellant). 2. The complainant, moved an application, for housing loan to the State Bank of India RACPAC, Sector-17, Chandigarh OP No.2, and also handed over 3/4 cheques to it, out of which, two cheques in the sum of Rs.2200/- and Rs.1000/-, respectively, were presented and encahsed on 7.4.2010. In the month of March 2010, one person, on behalf of OP No.2, visited for making survey of the property. He made enquiries, took photographs of the complainant and told that the formalities would be completed and the amount of loan would be disbursed soon. Later on, the complainant was informed telephonically that housing loan of Rs.4,65,000/-, instead of Rs.4,50,000/-, had been sanctioned vide letter dated 29.3.2010. The complainant was called to the office of OP No.2, for completing necessary formalities. On 29.3.2010, the complainant was handed over a letter of the even date, addressed to the President/Secretary, Halqa Patwari, Kharar, stating therein, that housing loan in the sum of Rs.4,50,000/- had been sanctioned and fresh jamabandi after marking lien, in favour of the bank, on the same, be supplied to him (complainant). Upon enquiry by the complainant, he was told that Rs.15,000/- were towards SBI Life cover for which he never opted. Later on, when the complainant contacted the Halqa Patwari and showed the letter, he refused to even entertain the same. He also refused to append his remarks, on the jamabandi. The officials of OP No.2 told that the loan could only be disbursed after the formalities were complete. The complainant tried to contact OP NO.1 and also gave a writing to it on 6.5.2010. On 14.5.2010, the complainant received reply from OP No.2, stating therein its inability to disburse the loan. It was further stated that non-disbursement of loan caused a lot of physical harassment and mental agony to the complainant, as he had taken loan, from the market, on the assurance of the OPs, that the loan would be disbursed. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the OPs, amounted to deficiency in service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. The complainant, thus, claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.1 lac. When the OPs refused to pay the same to him, he filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 3. The OPs, in their reply, did not dispute the factual matrix. It was stated that it was duty of the complainant to supply the latest jamabandi of the property, by getting the lien marked , on the same, in favour of the OPs. It was further stated that the complainant was to incur the miscellaneous expenses, such as processing charges, verification of documents, and valuation of the property. It was further stated that the letter dated 6.5.2010 of the complainant was duly replied and he was told that the SBI Life cover was an additional facility, and, if he was not willing, the amount would not be debited. It was further stated that the OPs only did their duty, in right perspective, acting as per the financial discipline, since the loan had to be secured properly. It was denied that, on account of non-disbursement of loan, due to the non-completion of formalities, by the complainant, he suffered physical harassment and mental agony. It was also denied that the OPs were deficient, in rendering service and indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining allegations were denied, being wrong. 4. The parties led evidence, in support of their case. 5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, on the ground, that since the requisite formalities, were not completed by the complainant, the loan could not be disbursed to him. It was further held by the District Forum that, as such, there was no deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the OPs, nor did they indulge into unfair trade practice. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal was filed, by the appellant/complainant. 7. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 8. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that since the appellant had submitted the title deed of the property, falling within the Municipal limits of Kharar, against which the loan was sanctioned, and nature of the property was urban, there was no requirement of marking lien, on the latest jamabandi by the Patwari. He further submitted that it was only after taking the title deed of the property of the complainant, that the loan was sanctioned, in his favour by the OPs, and they were required to disburse the same to him. He further submitted that, no doubt, no direction could be given to the Bank by the District Forum for the disbursement of loan, yet compensation on account of physical harassment and mental agony which was caused to the complainant, as he had to get loan from the market, when the OPs failed to disburse the same, after sanction, was required to be granted. He further submitted that the District Forum failed to do so. He also placed reliance on Jagmohan Lal Mohan Vs ICICI Home Finance Company Limited & Ors. II(2010)CPJ189(NC), in support of his contention. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside. 9. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents, submitted that since the formalities, as per the check list, were not completed by the complainant, loan amount could not be disbursed to him. He further submitted that the latest Jamabandi by marking the lien of the bank thereon, was required to be produced by the complainant, as per R-1 check list, but he failed to produce the same and, as such, the loan was not disbursed to him. He further submitted that there was no deficiency, in service, on the part of the OPs, but, on the other hand, the conduct of the complainant was blameworthy. He further submitted that the OPs did not indulge into unfair trade practice. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld. 10. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be partly accepted, for the reasons, to be recorded, hereinafter. Undoubtedly, the complainant applied for the housing loan with OP NO.2. He admittedly submitted the title deed of the property against which the loan was applied for. This property fell within the limits of Municipal Committee, Kharar, and the nature thereof is urban. It is also an admitted case of the parties, that the loan was sanctioned, in favour of the complainant, but the same was not disbursed, as according to the OPs, he did not produce the latest jamabandi with lien of the bank marked thereon. The bank, in our opinion, was required to get completed all the formalities, from the complainant, before the loan had been sanctioned, in his favour. Had the bank resorted to such a procedure, then, in the event of non completion of the requisite formalities, and non-production of some documents, as are mentioned in the check list R1, the sanction of loan could certainly be refused. After the sanction of loan, in favour of the complainant, in our opinion, such frivolous condition could not be raised by the OPs. There is, no dispute, with regard to the proposition of law that even after the sanction of loan, it was the sole prerogative of the bank, whether to disburse the same, in favour of the loanee or not. The Consumer Fora, could not give a direction to the OPs to disburse loan, in favour of the appellant, after the same had been sanctioned. Similar principle of law, was laid down in Jagmohan Lal Mohan’s case (supra) by the National Commission. Even, the Counsel for the appellant, did not dispute this proposition of law. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the OPs were deficient, in rendering service, by not disbursing loan, in favour of the complainant. 11. The next question, that arises for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant was required to be compensated, for physical harassment and mental agony, caused to him, on account of non-disbursal of loan, in his favour, arbitrarily, after the same was sanctioned, when he had to get the same from the market for raising the construction. It must have taken sufficient time and led to incurring of some expenses, by the complainant, in completing, a number of formalities, as are contained in R1 check list, for the purpose of processing his application for loan before, ultimately, the same was sanctioned. The complainant, in his affidavit, by way of evidence, in clear-cut terms, stated that he took loan from the market, when the loan sanctioned, in his favour, was not disbursed by the OPs. One can imagine, the plight of a loanee, who completed almost all the formalities, except a few, and in whose favour loan was sanctioned, but was not disbursed. The project, which was to be undertaken by the complainant, with the loan, which was sanctioned, in his favour, but was not disbursed, could not be completed in time. It was, under these circumstances, that he must have taken loan from other sources for the purpose of raising construction of the house and completing the project. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the physical harassment and mental agony, suffered by the complainant, on account of the aforesaid acts of the OPs, and the financial loss, if any, caused to him, on account of non-disbursal of loan, if compensation in the sum of Rs.20,000/- is awarded, that would be just, fair and reasonable. In Jagmohan Lal Mohan’s case (supra) based on almost identical facts, as are prevailing, in the present case, the National Commission granted compensation to the complainant for physical harassment and mental agony. The complainant is, thus, held entitled to the compensation, in the aforesaid sum. 12. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is partly accepted, with costs of Rs.10,000/-. The order of the District Forum is set aside. The OPs/respondents are directed to pay compensation, to the tune of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant, within a period of 30 days, besides costs, from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, failing which, the amount of compensation shall be paid with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint, till realization. 13. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. 14. The file be consigned to Record Room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
