Hon'ble Mr. Subhas Ch. Guin, Member.
The fact of the complaint as culled out from the complaint petition in a nutshell is that the Complainant Mr. Nazrul Haque who is a permanent resident of Cooch Behar town under the jurisdiction of this Commission applied for a home loan to the Branch Manager, Axis Bank Limited, Suniti Road, Cooch Behar (OP) with all relevant document including land documents and after full satisfaction and enquiry the OP demanded processing fee of Rs.5,900/- for the loan. Accordingly the Complainant deposited a cheque of Rs.5,900/-, drawn on Union Bank of India to the OP, which was debited on 21.07.21. Again the OP directed the Complainant to open a S/B account in their bank and the Complainant opened an account bearing No.92101002233944 with a deposition of Rs.6,000/- and a debit card was issued in favour of the Complainant by the OP for which a sum of Rs.354/- was debited from Complainant’s account. On completion of all these activities the OP bank did not grant house building loan nor did they issue any letter in favour of the Complainant. Thereafter, the Complainant filed a written complaint before the OP on 31.08.21 demanding refund of Rs.5,900/- for processing fee and all relevant documents which were received by the OP for granting the loan but the OP did not refund the amount of Rs.5,900/- and return all documents and reply for the same. These activities of the OP was considered to be deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the Complainant which caused him to suffer from mental pain and agony. The cause of action of this case arose on 21.07.21 when the OP received the amount of Rs.5,900/- as processing fee and on 04.08.21 when the OP opened the S/B account and lastly on 31.08.21 when the Complainant filed written complaint to the OP. Thus, the Complainant prayed for a direction to the OP to refund of Rs.5,900/- with upto date interest and return all documents to the Complainant and pay Rs.2,00,000/- for deficiency in service and mental pain and agony and Rs.10,000/- for litigation cost.
The O.P bank contested the case by filing written version, Evidence on Affidavit and Written Argument. The Ld. Lawyer for the O.P in his defence plea stated that Complainant’s house building loan was not granted due to mismatch of the document submitted by the Complainant which was admitted by the Complainant. But the Complainant raised objection regarding deduction of Rs.5,900/- as processing fee which he claimed to be refunded by the O.P after the loan was not granted.
The Ld. Lawyer for the O.P argued that the Complainant submitted the loan application form duly filled in after reading all clauses written on it and a few of the terms and conditions which were changed were informed to the Complainant verbally by the O.P. The Complainant signed the application form accepting all terms and conditions of the loan. So, the Complainant was well aware of all terms and conditions of the said loan. Thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. He also argued that it was admitted by the Complainant with his signature in the loan application form that Rs.5,900/- would be deducted as processing fee which he deposited in the form of cheque in the O.P’s account and the said processing fee is not refundable in case of rejection of home loan or withdrawal of loan application form. Thus, the Complainant was well aware of the fact that the processing fee which is not refundable in case the loan being not sanctioned. Therefore, the O.P does not indulge in unfair trade practice.
Perused the case record and documents filed by the Complainant and the O.P. Heard the argument advanced by the both parties at length. Hence, the following points are required to be discussed to reach a conclusion about the instant case.
Points for Consideration
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P?
- Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief?
Decision with reason
Points No.1.
Both the points are taken up together for discussion as they are inter linked with each other and for brevity. The Complainant deposited a cheque of Rs.5,900/- in favour of the O.P for processing fee of the house building loan which was debited on 21.07.2021 by the O.P (Annexure-A). After 13 days of the receipt of processing fee, the Complainant opened an account in the O.P’s bank with the direction from the O.P and the O.P issued a Debit Card in favour of the Complainant with deduction of Rs.354/- from the Complainant’s account (Annexure-B & C). On completion of all these procedures, the O.P bank did not sanction home loan in favour of the Complainant with the plea of mismatch of the documents. Consequently, the Complainant filed a written complaint before the O.P bank on 31.08.2021 (Annexure-D) demanding refund of Rs.5,900/- and return of all documents which were received by the O.P. But the O.P bank did not refund the said amount nor did they return all documents to the Complainant. The O.P did not reply for the written complaint also. These activities of the O.P are clearly termed as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the Complainant. The O.P argued denying each and every allegation levelled against him. The main contention in the instant case is the refund amount of Rs.5,900/- and return of all documents submitted by the Complainant. The Complainant submitted the duly filled up and signed loan application form (Annexure-A of the O.P) reading all terms and conditions of the loan one of which was that the processing fee is not refundable in case of rejection of home loan or withdrawal of loan application form. Thus, the Complainant was well aware of the rule of processing fee which he cannot claim to be refunded in case of his loan being no sanctioned due to some reasons or other. The O.P of this instant case has discharged his duties according to the rule laid down in the application form. So, these activities of the O.P which is non-refund of the processing fee are not deficiency in service nor unfair trade practice. Therefore, the Complainant’s claim of refund of processing fee of Rs.5,900/- with up to date interest is declined and the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief for the same.
Consequently, the instant case fails on contest.
Hence, it is
Ordered
That the complaint case No. CC/54/2021 be and the same is dismissed on contest without cost. In fine the OP bank is directed to return all documents that were submitted by the Complainant for the said house building loan at the earliest.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by post forthwith, free of cost for information and necessary action, if any.
The copy of the Final Order is also available in the official Website www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
