DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE
PRESENT : Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT
Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) : MEMBER
Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER
Friday the 30th day of September 2022
C.C. 66/2018
Complainant
Madavan Nair,
S/o Kuttappan Nair,
Kishore Vihar House,
Peringavu Desom,
Vazhayoor,
Malappuram.
(By Adv. Sri. P. Chathukutty )
Opposite Party
M. Sudhakaran,
Manager,
Noora House Loans and Plans,
Aiswarya Appartment,
Near Christian College,
IMA Hall Road,
Kozhikode - 11
(By Adv. Sri.Victor. S.D. )
ORDER
By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN – PRESIDENT.
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:
The complainant approached the Malappuram District Co-operative Bank, Ayikkarappadi Branch for availing a loan for purchasing property. Then he came to know that he was not eligible to get the loan being aged 62 yrs. Lured by the advertisement in the Mathrubhumi daily and other publications to the effect that the opposite party was advancing loans, he approached the opposite party for that purpose. The opposite party agreed to advance a loan of Rs-10,00,000/- and stated that Rs. 40,000/- should be paid to him in advance. On 10/05/2017 he booked the loan paying an advance amount of Rs. 1000/-.
3. The Opposite party represented that the housing loan could be availed in the name of the complainant’s wife with the complainant as surety. Accordingly, all the relevant documents including the estimate and plan for the construction of upstairs for his house were entrusted to the opposite party. The complainant and his wife affixed their signatures on the documents as instructed by the opposite party. He had paid a total amount of Rs. 37,000/- to the opposite party in instalments.
4. The opposite party represented that Rs. 12,00,000/- could be availed as loan, for which, Rs. 8000/- more had to be paid to him, which the complainant agreed. The opposite party obtained certified copy of the release deed in respect of the loan which the complainant had availed from the Eranad Primary Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank. The opposite party also obtained the encumbrance certificate. All other documents were arranged and obtained by the complainant himself.
5. It was at this stage that the complainant came to know that the opposite party was not advancing loan, but only arranging loan from financial institutions levying huge fee. This fact was supressed from him. For arranging loan to the complainant, the opposite party made application in the Malappuram District Co-operative Bank. But the loan was not sanctioned. The opposite party had met expenses for getting the release deed and encumbrance certificate which amounts Rs.2000/- only. So the complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs- 35,000/- out of Rs. 37,000/- collected by the opposite party. Hence the complaint for refund of Rs. 35,000/- along with compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-.
6. The opposite party resisted the complaint by filing written version wherein he has denied all the allegations and claims in the complaint. According to the opposite party, he is neither advancing any loans personally nor arranging loans from banks. On the other hand, he is only giving guidance and arranging documents for availing loan from the banks and other approved institutions. His institution is a documentation centre which collects fixed fee for giving guidance and arranging documents for loans. On 10/05/2017 the complainant made enquiry with the opposite party about loans, the documents required and the amount required for obtaining and arranging documents for the purpose of availing loan of Rs.10,00,000/- by mortgaging his property. The complainant was informed that the service charge would be Rs. 40,000/-. An enquiry slip containing the details was given to him. On that day, he remitted Rs. 1000/- in the office of the opposite party and registered for guidance and documentation. After understanding the special conditions, his title deed was also entrusted to the opposite party. As per the agreement, the complainant remitted a total amount of Rs. 37,000/- including the advance amount of Rs. 1000/- and a discount of Rs.3000/- was given to him.
7. Thereafter, the opposite party gave proper guidance to the complainant and his wife that suitable loan can be availed from the Malappuram District Co-operative Bank and all the documents were arranged and obtained by the opposite party. The complainant and his wife obtained the documents list from the Aikarappadi branch of the Malappuram District Co-operative Bank. Thereafter along with the documents in the list, a loan application for Rs. 12,00,000/- with the complainant’s wife as the first applicant was prepared and on 06/07/2017 the original documents, the prior title deed, tax receipt and other documents were entrusted to the complainant at Ramanatukara through an office staff of the opposite party under receipt for submitting in the said bank. Later the loan was sanctioned by the bank and was availed by the complainant and his wife. There was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. In fact Rs.11,000/- is due to the opposite party from the complainant. The complainant is not entitled to any relief. With the above contentions, the opposite party prays for dismissal of the complaint.
8. The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;
(1). Whether there was any unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party, as alleged?
(2). Reliefs and costs.
9. Evidence consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exts A1 to A10 on the side of the complainant. RW1 was examined and Exts B1 to B10 were marked on the side of the opposite party.
10. We heard both sides.
11. Point No.1 : The complainant has approached this Commission alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. He is seeking refund of Rs. 35,000/- out of Rs. 37,000/- collected by the opposite party from him and also compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-.
12. In order to substantiate his case, the complainant got himself examined as PW1. PW1 has filed proof affidavit and deposed in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim. PW1 has maintained that lured by the advertisements, he approached the opposite party for availing loan and it was only later that he came to know that the opposite party is not lending money, but only arranging loans from financial institutions charging huge amount as service charges and thereby he was cheated. PW1 has maintained that the opposite party could not arrange the loan in spite of entrusting all documents and paying the fee.
13. The case advanced by the opposite party is that they are not advancing loans, but only functioning as a documentation centre giving guidance for loans from banks and other institutions and arranging and obtaining necessary documents for that purpose. The opposite party was examined as RW1. RW1 has filed proof affidavit and deposed supporting the contentions in the written version. RW1 has deposed that they have given proper guidance and documentation service to the opposite party for availing loan of Rs. 12,00,000/- which was sanctioned by the bank and availed by the complainant and his wife.
14. The first allegation of the complainant is that lured by the advertisement in the Mathrubhumi Malayalam daily and other publications that the opposite party is advancing loan, he approached the opposite party and entrusted relevant documents and paid Rs. 37,000/-, but the loan was not given. The learned counsel for the opposite party argued that there was no such advertisement that the opposite party is advancing loans. It was submitted that the recitals in the advertisement were only to the effect that the opposite party was providing guidance and documentation service for availing loan from bank and other financial institutions. The complainant has produced Ext A1 advertisement in the Mathrubhumi Malayalam daily. But it may be noted that Ext A1 is dated 21/01/2018. The complainant approached the opposite party on 10/05/2017. The advertisement which allegedly misled the complainant is not produced before this Commission. Moreover Ext B2 special conditions and Ext B4 agreement would clearly show that the complainant was aware of the fact that the opposite party is not advancing loans. Exts B2 and B4 are admitted by the complainant. The signature in those documents are admitted by him. From the recitals in Exts B2 and B4 it is crystal clear that the complainant approached the opposite party for guidance and documentation service for availing loan and not for availing loan from the opposite party. That being the position, no unfair trade practice can be attributed against the opposite party.
15. The second allegation is regarding deficiency of service. The evidence shows that the service charges agreed to be paid to the opposite party was Rs. 40,000/-. It is an admitted fact that Rs. 37,000/- was paid by the complainant to the opposite party in instalments. According to the opposite party, a discount of Rs. 3000/- was allowed to the complainant. The complainant has no case that the opposite party did not render proper guidance and documentation service. It has come out in evidence that a loan of Rs.12,00,000/- was sanctioned and availed by the complainant and his wife from the Malapuram District Co-operative Bank on the basis of the loan application and documents submitted which were received by the complainant from the opposite party as per Ext B6 receipt. The complainant has a case in the complaint that the loan was not sanctioned and he had to borrow money from third parties at exorbitant rate of interest. In the proof affidavit filed by him it is averred that a personal loan was sanctioned in the name of his wife by the Malapuram District Co-operative Bank and the same was utilised for repaying the money borrowed and no service of the opposite party was availed for obtaining the said personal loan. But in this context, it is pertinent to note that the complainant has not produced the details of loan sanctioned by the bank. It is the definite case of RW1 that loan of Rs.12,00,000/- was sanctioned by the Malapuram District Co-operative Bank and the loan amount was credited to the account of the complainant’s wife on 12/08/2017. This aspect stands unchallenged in the cross examination.
16. The evidence in hand shows that the complainant approached the opposite party for getting guidance with regard to bank loan and for documentation purpose. They entered in to Ext B4 agreement and as per the agreement, the complainant paid the service charges for the service rendered by the opposite party. There is no proof of any deficiency in that service.
17. To sum up, we find that no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice as alleged is proved or established against the opposite party and consequently the complainant is not entitled for refund of the service charges paid or to claim compensation.
18. Point No.2: In view of the finding on the above point, the complainant is not eligible to claim and get any relief as prayed for.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. However, no order as to costs.
Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 30th day of September, 2022.
Date of Filing: 28/02/2018.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant :
Ext. A1 – Advertisement in the Mathrubhumi Malayalam daily.
Ext. A2 – Receipt dated 10-05-2017 for Rs. 1,000/-
Ext. A3- Receipt dated 16-05-2017 for Rs. 4,000/-
Ext. A4 – Receipt dated 25-05-2017 for Rs. 10,000/-
Ext. A5- Receipt dated 02-06-2017 for Rs. 5,000/-
Ext. A6 - Receipt dated 12-06-2017 for Rs. 10,000/-
Ext. A7- Copy of letter issued by the complainant to the opposite party.
Ext. A8- Reply letter dated 31/08/2017 sent by opposite party to the
complainant
Ext. A9 – Copy of receipt letter dated 15-09-2017 sent by the complainant
to the opposite party with receipt.
Ext. A10–Reply letter dated 26-09-2017 sent by the opposite party to
the complainant.
Exhibits for the opposite parties
Ext. B1- Booking form
Ext. B2- Special conditions of Noora House Loans and Plans.
Ext. B3- Copy of legal opinion.
Ext. B4- Agreement.
Ext. B5- Authorization letter dated 16-05-2017.
Ext. B6- Receipt.
Ext. B7- Pay in slip dated 26/06/2018 of MDC Bank.
Ext. B8- Pay in slip dated 18/06/2018 of MDC Bank.
Ext. B9- Certified copy of document No. 2889/2017.
Ext. B10- Reply received to the application under Right to Information
Act.
Witnesses for the Complainant
PW1 – Madhavan Nair
Witnesses for the opposite parties
RW1-M. Sudhakaran
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
Forwarded / By order
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
