A. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : AT HYDERABAD
FA 82/2008 CC No.643/2007 on the file of the
District Forum III, Hyderabad
Between :
Industrial Development Bank of India Ltd
Loan Center 106, 1st Floor,
Mahaveer House, Basheerbagh Square,
Hyderabad – 500 029, rep. by its
Branch Manager .. Appellant/opposite party
And
T. N. Sudhakar,S/o T. Narayana Pillai,
Aged about 49 years, India, Occ: Pvt. Service
R/o H. No. 12-11-1425, Baudhanagar,
Warsiguda, Secunderabad .. Respondent/Complainant
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. Sri L. V. Shankar
Counsel for the Respondent : M/s. V. Gourisankara Rao
Coram ; Sri Syed Abdullah … Hon’ble Member
And
Sri R. Lakshminarasimha Rao… Hon’ble Member
Thursday, the Fifteenth Day of July, Two Thousand Ten
Oral Order : ( As per Sri Syed Abdullah, Hon’ble Member )
*******
The appellant is the unsuccessful opposite party in CC 643/2007 before the District Forum III, Hyderabad, where under, an exparte order was passéd directing payment of compensation of Rs. One lakh and also processing charges of Rs.4,490/- collected from the respondent/complainant. The impugned order is assailed as erroneous on the ground that there was no opportunity to the appellant/complainant to put forth his case, so, sought to set aside the same by remanding the matter to the District forum for giving an opportunity.
The facts of the case disclose that the complainant had approached the respondent bank for availing Home loan and he submitted an application through an agent along with all relevant documents for sanction of loan. Sanctioned letter was issued on 11.10.2006 for Rs. 4 lakhs which is repayable with interest at 10.25% pa in 120 equated monthly instalments @ Rs.5,342/-. The complainant paid Rs.1000/- for service charges. Apart from it, the opposite party collected 20 ICICI Bank posted dated cheques. The complainant also submitted NOC given by the builder, advance payment receipts. Original agreement of sale, original work order, 3 years income tax assessment order, original papers of guarantors, encumbrance certificate etc. Though the loan was released one month after, the opposite party informed that due to delayed submission of application, his application was rejected and requested the complainant to pay Rs.300/- towards new application form and cheque for Rs.1000/- which was paid on 17.01.2007. Though he paid afresh service charges to the opposite party for issue of a revised sanctioned letter, in spite of which, the loan was not released. A registered letter was sent to the opposite party requesting to return all the original documents along with service charges paid by him, followed by it, a legal notice dated 24.05.2007. Failure on the part of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. Hence claimed compensation of Rs.one lakh with costs.
Though the appellant/opposite party appeared through its advocate on 27.08.2007 and subsequently since had not filed any counter, so OP was set exparte on 01.11.2007. pursuant there to, considering the evidence affidavit along with Ex. A-1 to A-4, an order was passed holding that the opposite party had committed deficiency in service. Also held that the opposite party had deprived the complainant of an opportunity to avail loan else where by withholding the required documents and not releasing the sanctioned loan.
The appeal grounds raised are that the District Forum passed an order without going into the merits of the case and that it failed to consider that the complainant failed to comply with the formalities within time and thereby loan was not sanctioned. Clause 3 of the Revised Sanction letter itself is very clear that offer stand automatically cancelled and withdrawn on 60 days from the date of that letter, unless before that date borrower complies with the conditions contained in the form and manner acceptable to Bank and avails disbursement of home loan facility from the bank.
Point for consideration is, whether the impugned order suffers from any factual and legal infirmity ?
No doubt, the appellant/opposite party had sanctioned loan to the complainant on submission of his application along with payment of service charges but it is subject to compliance of formalities. The law is settled that the bank cannot be compelled to sanction loan and the bank has its own constrains and restraints in sanctioning the loan. Unless it is satisfied with the security and chances of recovery it need not sanction loan. The contention raised by the complainant is that since original documents were withheld in spite of sending legal notice, it amounts to deficiency in service and thereby he claimed compensation. Whatever it may be, an exparte order was passed and the appellant/opposite party had no opportunity to contest the case and put forth its defence. Denial of opportunity to a party to the litigation is opposed to principles of natural justice. It is necessary that the appellant/opposite party should be given an opportunity to put forth its defense before the District Forum for appreciation of factual aspects involved in the case so as to arrive at a right conclusion where OP had committed and deficiency in service in not returning the documents which he had filed along with loan application. No opinion is expressed with regard to the merits of the case.
In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the exparte order in CC 643/2007 dated 12.12.2007 by remanding the matter to the District Forum III, Hyderabad for disposal of it on merits by giving an opportunity to both sides to adduce documentary evidence on their side.
The District Forum shall issue notice to both sides fixing date of hearing and to dispose of the case within two months from the date of receipt of the order.
Sd/-MEMBER
Sd/- MEMBER
DATED : 15.07.2010.
