(Delivered on 11/02/2019)

Per Mr. B.A. Shaikh, Hon’ble Presiding Member

1. This appeal is filed by original complainants feeling aggrieved by an order dated 6/6/2015 passed by District Consumer Forum, Nagpur by which the consumer complaint No. 307/2013 has been dismissed.
2. The case of the complainants as set out by them in the consumer complaint in brief is as under.

1. The respondent/bank as per appellants requests sanctioned loan of Rs. 10093600/- on 29/11/2010. The respondent obtained signature of the appellants on various documents without giving understanding of the contents of the said documents to them.
2. The respondent had shown two demand drafts for Rs. 57,25,000/- & Rs. 42,75,000/- to the appellants on 29/01/2011. However, the respondent without disbursing the loan amount as per said demand drafts deducted EMI of the loan amount by presenting the cheques. The appellant therefore obtained copies of the documents from the respondent  from the respondent. On receiving those documents, the appellants issued legal notice to the respondent on 17/5/2012. Thereafter the appellants requested the respondent to supply statement of accounts and also requested  to refund the EMI deducted by the respondent. On receipt of the notice of the appellant, an amount of Rs. 3,99,194/- was refunded by way of demand draft to the appellants on 2/8/2012. The respondent did not refund balance amount of Rs. 14,40,736/- as deducted illegally from their bank account without disbursement of the loan. They also  claimed Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for providing deficient  service  and further compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for physical and mental harassment and litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/-. Thus, the appellant made total claim of Rs. 18,50,736/- with interest from the respondent by filing the said complaint.

3. The respondent resisted that complaint by filing the reply in brief as under.

1. The respondent had agreed to provide housing loan of Rs. 10093600/-, to be repaid  with interest at the rate of 9 percent per annum, by installments of Rs. 1,27,862/- each  within 120 months. The said loan was sanctioned under terms and conditions that before disbursement of entire loan amount, the appellants should submit renewal lease deed  as obtained from the owner. The validity of the sanction letter was for 90 days from the date of sanction i.e. from 29/11/2010. The appellant had given undertaking in writing that he will submit all the necessary documents to the respondent/bank with full understanding that unless he submitted the documents, he will not receive pay order. The said writing was given on 27/01/2011 and it was notarized on 28/01/2011.
2. Therefore the respondent had prepared two pay orders  bearing Nos. 656187 and 656188 dated 29/01/2011 of Rs. 57,25,000/- and Rs. 42,75,000/- that is for total Rs. 10,000,000/-. The appellant had also signed the documents and thereby agreed to pay interest on the aforesaid amount from the date of the pay order. It is stated in the said document that the interest, principle  and other charges are payable to the respondent on cancellation of the loan due to  non submission of the aforesaid document.
3. It was the duty of the appellant to pay installments from the date of pay order. The respondent presented cheques of installments to the respondent from 29/01/2011 till 10/04/2012. The respondent calculated interest from 10/03/2011 to 10/04/2012 amounting to Rs. 12,59,654/- and the total EMI paid was amounting to Rs. 18,09,234/-The appellants had given assurance that they would submit the renewal lease deed before the disbursement of the loan. Hence the appellants paid installments regularly from January 2011 but when appellants learnt  that they are unable to submit renewal lease deed as per promise, they issued notice dated 26/04/2012 demanding the documents, which were provided to them. Moreover, as per request of the appellants, time of the pay order  was extended from time to time. The respondent/OP gave reply to the notice of the appellant and  also refunded Rs. 3,99,194/- specified as to how the said amount is calculated and paid. No deficiency in service therefore can be attributed to the respondent. Hence the respondent had requested that the complaint may be dismissed.

4. The District Forum after hearing both parties and considering evidence brought on record, accepted the aforesaid defence by the respondent and dismissed the complaint by passing  impugned order. Thus, feeling aggrieved, the original complainants have filed this appeal. The learned advocate of both parties filed written notes of arguments and submitted that the same be treated as their oral submission.  
5. We have also perused entire record and proceeding of the appeal. The learned advocate of the appellant  in his written notes of arguments  reiterated the case  of the appellants as set out  in the original complaint and they submitted in brief that the District Forum below has not considered in right perspective, the evidence brought on record and when the demand drafts/pay orders were simply prepared and no handed over to the appellants then there was no question of payment of the EMI and interest thereon. Moreover as per condition Nos. 19 and 24  of the agreement, the disbursement of the loan was subject to submission of necessary documents and sanction letter will remain in force till validity only and the validation will be the  discretion of the bank on the application of the borrower. The learned advocate of the appellant therefore requested that the impugned order may be set aside and the relief sought by the appellants in the complaint may be granted.
6. On the other hand, the learned advocate of the  respondent in his written notes of arguments reiterated the aforesaid defence  of the respondent and supported the impugned order and requested that appeal may be dismissed with cost.
7. It is thus seen that most of the material facts are not disputed. In our view, when the appellant themselves had signed the documents dated 28/01/2011 in which it is specifically  admitted by them that they will not claim the demand draft/pay orders shown  to them till renewal lease deed is submitted by them to respondent.  Admittedly no such lease deed duly renewed was submitted by appellants to the respondent/bank for disbursement of the loan, though two demand drafts/pay orders  for total Rs. 10,000,000/- were  already prepared by them. Thus as per agreement, the appellant paid 14 installments without any objection.
8. We are therefore of considered view  that when the two pay orders/demand drafts  of total value of  Rs. 10,000,000/- were  already prepared as per request of the appellants and when the said amount could not be utilized  for any purpose by the respondent and when the appellants voluntarily  paid 14 installments as per agreement, then no deficiency in service can be attributed to the respondent on their refunding Rs. 3,99,194/- only.
9.  The respondent has given details  as to how the appellants are entitled for refund of Rs. 3,99,194/- only out of 14 EMI paid by them. The said details are given below.

      The Forum has considered these material aspects of the case in right perspectives and reached to correct conclusion and findings. Therefore we hold that there is no merits in this appeal and it deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly following order is passed.

ORDER

1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. No order as to cost in appeal.
3. Copy of the order be furnished to both parties, free of cost.