DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 14^th day of February, 2023

Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V.,  President

            : Smt.Vidya A., Member           

            : Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member                Date of filing: 28/10/2020

CC/140/2020

E. Suresh Kumar

Jyothi Nivas, Tharangali

(Renuka Sadanam)

Mannannur Post

Palakkad -679 523                                                   -       Complainant

(Party in person)

Vs

1. Branch Manager

HDFC Ltd.

Centre Point, M. G. Road

Thrissur – 680 004

2. Managing Director

HDFC Ltd, HDFC House

H T Parekh Marg

165-166, Backbay Reclamation                                -      Opposite parties 

Church Gate, Mumbai -400 020

(1^st and 2^nd opposite parties by Adv. M/s. A.V.Arun & K.R.Arun Krishnan)

O R D E R

By Sri. Krishnankutty.N.K., Member

1. Pleadings of the Complainant.

The complainant approached the 1^st opposite party for taking over his housing loan liability of Rs. 10,50,000/- with Ottappalam Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd along with an additional loan of Rs. 7,50,000/-.  The complainant submitted necessary application and copies of all documents deposited with Co-operative Urban Bank for creation of mortgage at the time of availing the loan from them. The opposite party collected Rs. 10,000/- as processing fee.  Since the takeover of loan didn't happen as committed by the opposite party, the complainant sought refund of the processing fee collected from him.  After protracted correspondence with the opposite party and lodging complaint with HDFC group Grievance Forum, Rs. 7,000/- was refunded to the complainant with much delay.  The complainant issued legal notice to both the opposite parties seeking compensation of Rs. 41,200/- for their deficiency in service and return of entire bunch of documents submitted to them.  The opposite party finally agreed to refund the balance amount of Rs. 3,000/-.  According to the complainant, the opposite party has violated the National House Finance Policy of Reserve Bank of India and the guidelines issued by them in their Master Circular on housing finance in handling his proposal and refund of processing fee.  Hence he approached this Commission for a total compensation of Rs. 74,775/- and return of all documents apart from cost.

2. Notice was issued to the opposite parties.  They entered appearance and filed their joint version.  According to them the complainant approached them for takeover of housing loan liability with Ottappalam Cooperative Urban Bank to the tune of Rs 10,30,211/- and an additional loan of Rs. 2,60,000/-.  The loans were sanctioned in principle and when the documents were sent for legal scrutiny, the legal appraiser sought two additional original documents (sale deeds) for certifying the mortgageability of the property.  Since the complainant was not willing to hand over these documents, they couldn't disburse the loan.  As per the request of the complainant, the loan sanction was cancelled and Rs. 7,000/- was refunded to him after deducting the charges for site inspection, legal scrutiny, etc.  Further, the retained amount of Rs. 3,000/- was also released to him, conceding to his request.

3. The complainant filed proof affidavit along with certain documents.  Since documents were not filed properly, the complainant was directed to file them separately and properly docketed.  As the instruction was not carried out by the complainant, his evidence was closed without marking the documents.  The opposite parties didn't file proof affidavit or mark any documents from their side.

4. The complainant was continuously absent for the proceedings and hence the case was taken for orders based on merit.

5. Hence, in the absence of any documents marked as evidence, conclusion has to be drawn from the narrations given in the above paras.  It can be seen that the loan, though sanctioned couldn't be disbursed only because of the reluctance of the complainant to hand over the two documents as advised by the legal panel of the opposite parties.  Getting a proper legal scrutiny confirming the absolute and marketable title of the property to be mortgaged as security is the primary requirement for granting any loan.  Further the opposite party has refunded the entire processing fee collected, though with some delay.  The complainant failing to mark his documents, this Commission is not in a position to examine further, whether there was delay or deficiency on the part of the opposite parties in handling the issues of sanctioning the loan or refunding the processing fee to the complainant.

6. As the complainant failed to prove a prima-facie case against the opposite parties, the complaint is dismissed.

Pronounced in open court on this the 14^th day of February, 2023.

                                                                                                  Sd/-     

                                                                                Vinay Menon V

                                                         President 

                                                                 Sd/-

                                                          Vidya A

                                    Member   

                                                                                                       Sd/-

                                                                                     Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                             Member

Appendix

Documents marked from the side of the Complainant: Nil

Documents marked from the side of opposite party: Nil

Witness examined- Nil

Cost- Nil

NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.