West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/166/2016

Sri Suvro Chakraborti - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, L.I.C. Housing Finance Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

23 May 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

and 

Mr. Pulak Kumar Singha, Member.

   

Complaint Case No.166/2016

 

Sri Suvro Chakraborti, S/o Sri Sankar Chakraborti, Gouribari Apartment-E4, Mirbazar, P.O. Medinipur, District-Paschim  Medinipur., PIN-721101.

         ……………Complainant.

                                                                              Vs.

1)The Branch Manager, LIC Housing Finance Ltd., Adjacent to LIC CAB Branch Building, Malancha Road, P.O. Nimpura, Dist. Paschim Medinipur,  W.B. PIN-721304,

2)The Office-in-charge, LIC Housing Finance Ltd., Corporate Office, Maker Tower-F, 13^th Floor, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005, Maharastera.

                                                                                     .....……….….Opp. Parties.

                                                    

              For the Complainant: Mr.  Sankar Chakraborti, Advocate.

              For the O.P.               : Mr. Diptendu Ghosh, Advocate.

 

 

Decided on: -23/05/2017

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President – This is a case u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, filed by the complainant Sri Suvro Chakraborti against the O.P.- Banch Manager of LIC Housing  Finance Ltd. and another.

           Facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant went to the office of the O.P. for housing loan and he gave him the mobile number of the manager of the

Contd…………P/2

 

 

                                                                                                      ( 2 )

O.P. -LICHFL and accordingly the complainant met contact with the manager over phone who told him to make contact with one Mr.Arun Kr. Bairi of Rabindra Nagar.  The complainant met said Mr.  Bairi, who gave him a set of loan application forms and the complainant put his signatures thereon being instructed by him.  He also submitted the original loan agreement of sale of flat dated 14/10/2015 and thereafter  Mr. Bairi sent one Mr.Sandip to take measurement of the said flat, but without taking any measurement he took Rs.1500/- in cash from the father of the complainant.  Thereafter the father of the complainant also issued a cheque dated 15/10/2015 for Rs.10,830/- in favour of the O.P.-LICHFL on behalf of his son towards processing fees of such housing loan.  It is alleged that on receiving e-mail dated 8/2/2016, the complainant came to know that his loan was cancelled but the date of cancellation and reason for cancellation was not known to him.  O.P. also did not return any documents to the complainant in respect of his loan and the complainant also failed to understand as to what was his fault for such cancellation.  It is stated that the manager of the O.P.-LICHFL told him that he can take further loan with his wife and in that case the processing fees could be waived as Women’s day.  It is stated that in the mean time the flat owner suddenly expired on 5/11/2015 i.e. after 21 days from the date of agreement of sale of flat.  Finding no other alternative, the complainant went to other two banks for getting housing loan and at that time he was astonished to know from them that his name was recorded in Credit Information Bureau (India) Ltd. on 14/10/2015.  For such act of the O.P., the complainant was harassed and he suffered mental agony and financial loss.  Hence, this case, praying for directing the O.Ps to return back Rs.14,714/- as paid by the complainant from time to time and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and other reliefs as may deem fit and proper.

                   Both the O.Ps have contested this case by filling joint written objection.

    Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the opposite party that the complainant approached before the O.P.-LICHFL, Kharagpur Branch for obtaining house building loan and O.P. no.1 told him regarding all pros and corns of the said loan.  Being satisfied about the terms and conditions of the said loan, the complainant was agreed with such proposal and he told the O.P. no.1 that he will purchase one flat being no.H4 on the fourth floor measuring about 1002 sq. ft. super built up area in the multistoried building situated within the Mouza Nabinabag Barabazar in R.S Plot no.164, 165 and 556 in his own name from the owner of the said flat namely Sri. Deepak Kumar Roy @ Nirmal Kumar Roy and the complainant also submitted one agreement of sale dated 14/10/2015 executed  in between the complainant and said Sri. Deepak Kumar Roy @ Nirmal Kumar Roy.  Accordingly O.P. no.1 proceeded for sanctioning the said loan and the complainant after going

Contd…………P/3

 

                                      

                                                                                                              ( 3 )

through the contents of all documents signed thereon on which it was clearly written that if the complainant is agreeable to avail the loan on such terms and conditions, then he should confirm the same within 30 days and thereafter LICHFL will investigate about the title, valuation etc. of the property on making required payment of non -refundable administrative fees by the complainant.  Thereafter a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- was sanctioned as house building loan in the name of the complainant on 15/10/2015 by the O.P.-LICHFL.  Within three months of the said date of sanction of the said loan, the complainant did not comply the terms and conditions as stipulated in the loan agreement and sanction letter and he also did not supply all relevant documents to the O.P. no.1 and as such it was quite impossible on the part of the O.P. no.1 to disburse the said loan in favour of the complainant.  Unfortunately,  the complainant started pressuring the O.P. no.1 to disburse the loan in the name of himself and his brother namely Soumya Chakrabarty but the O.P. no.1 clearly expressed that it cannot be done as the said loan has already been sanctioned in the name of the complainant only.  Another anomaly and problem arose as the complainant told the O.P. no.1 that the sale deed is to be executed by himself and his brother as vendee and one Ankhi Ranjan Roy as vendor cum owner but the complainant failed to produce any cogent document regarding the legal heirs of Late Deepak Kumar Roy, who died in the mean time, including the death certificate of said Deepak Kumar Roy.  Since the loan agreement was sanctioned on basis of agreement of sale dated 14/10/2015 so it cannot be changed but the petitioner did not cooperate with the O.P. no.1 in any manner whatsoever.  It is stated  by the O.P. that a cheque of Rs.10,830/- was issued only in favour of the petitioner  for processing fees for sanctioning of the said loan which has already been sanctioned and so there is no deficiency in service on the part of these O.Ps.  Except the said amount neither the complainant nor his father ever paid any money to the O.Ps.  It is stated that due to non co-operation   and whimsical attitude of the complainant and his father, the O.P. could not disburse the said loan and as such it was cancelled. The O.P. therefore claims dismissal of the complaint with cost.

                                                                 Point for decision

1)Is the case maintainable in it’s present form and prayer?

2)Are the complainants consumer under the provision of C.P. Act?

3)Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

4)Are the complainants entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for? 

 

Contd…………P/4

                                       

 

                                                                                                              ( 4 )

 

Decision with reasons

                 For the sake of convenience and brevity, all the above points are taken up together for consideration.

                        At the very outset, it is to be mentioned here that in this case, neither the complainant nor the O.P. has adduced any sort of evidence, either oral or documentary.  However, they have of course filed some documents in support of their respective cases.

                        Admittedly, the complainant Suvro Chakraborti approached the  O.P. no.1 for granting him housing loan for Rs.10,00,000/- and he also submitted necessary application for loan before the O.P. no.1.  Along with the said loan application, he also submitted a deed of agreement of sale of a flat, duly executed by him and one Dipak Kumar Roy, the owner of that flat.  It is also undisputed that a sum of Rs.10,830/- was paid by cheque to the O.Ps by the complainant towards  processing fees for sanctioning of the said loan.  It is also undisputed that thereafter, the O.P. sanctioned Rs.10,00,000/- as housing building loan in the name of  the  complainant  on 15/10/2015.  So, it appears that at this stage, there was no deficiency in service on the part of O.P.- LICHFL.  According to the complainant that although the O.P. sanctioned the said loan but the same was not disbursed but he was not confirmed about the cause of cancellation of such loan.  As against this, it is the case of the O.P.-LICHFL that it was agreed between them that if the complainant is agreeable to avail the loan, then he should confirm the same within 30 days and thereafter O.P.-LICHFL would investigate about the title valuation etc. of the property on making required payment of non refundable administrative fees by the complainant. It was also agreed by the complainant that he will have to fulfill and comply with all the requirements for disbursement of the loan within a period of three months failing which the O.P.-LICHFL will be at  liberty to refuse disbursement of the loan.  It is none but the complainant himself in his petition of complaint has stated that the flat owner

Deepak Kumar Roy @ Nirmal Kumar Roy, with whom the agreement for sale of the flat in question was executed, suddenly died on 5/11/2015 i.e. after 21 days from the date of agreement.  Since the housing loan was sanctioned in terms of the said deed agreement of sale executed between Deepak Kumar Roy @ Nirmal Kumar Roy and the complainant, so according to the O.P., the complainant told them that the sale deed is to be executed in between himself and his brother  as vendee and one Ankhi Ranjan Roy as vendor cum owner.  It is alleged by the O.P. that the complainant failed to produce any cogent legal document to satisfy that the said Ankhi Ranjan Roy is the only legal heir of said Deepak Kumar Roy.

Contd…………P/5

 

 

                                                                                                                  ( 5 )

 Complainant adduced no evidence to show and to prove that after the death of Deepak  Kumar Roy he submitted any other agreement of sale of that flat duly executed by the legal heir of said  Deepak Kumar Roy. Further according to the O.P within the said period of three months from the date of sanction of the said loan the complainant did not comply the terms and conditions as stipulated in the loan agreement and sanction letter and he also did not supply all relevant documents to the O.P and as such it was quite impossible on the part of the O.P. no.1 to disburse the said loan in favour of the complainant.  Since admittedly said Deepak Kumar Roy @ Nirmal Kumar Roy died after 21 days from the date of execution of the deed of agreement of the sale and since we find no evidence to show that after the death of Deepak Kumar Roy @ Nirmal Kumar Roy, the complainant executed any other deed of agreement of sale with the legal heir of the deceased flat owner Deepak Kumar Roy. So it was not possible for the O.P.-LICHFL to disburse the loan in favour of the complainant and therefore we are of the view that there was no deficiency in service on the part of O.P.-LICHFL.  Complainant has claimed in this case for a direction to O.P to return back Rs.14,714/- as paid by him from time to time.  On this score, we find that the O.P. has admitted that a sum of Rs.10,830/-  was paid by cheque by the complainant to them towards processing fees of sanction of the said loan.  Since the loan was initially sanctioned on receipt of such processing fees, so there is no question to refund  the said amount to the complainant particularly when after such sanction of loan it was none but the complainant himself did not comply the said terms and conditions within the agreed period of three months.  Regarding remaining amount, the O.Ps have stated that they received no such amount from the complainant.  Complainant also filed no scrap of paper to show that apart from the said processing fees, he paid any other amount to the O.P.-LICHFL.  Therefore no question does arise to pass an order for payment of the said alleged amount. 

All the points are accordingly disposed of.

In the result, the complaint case fails.

                                      Hence, it is,

                                                            ORDERED,

                                                            that the complaint case being no.166/2016 is dismissed on contest but  in the circumstance without cost.

                        Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

Dictated and Corrected by me

          Sd/-B. Pramanik.                       Sd/- P.K. Singha                           Sd/-B. Pramanik.

               President                                     Member                                        President

                                                                                                                   District Forum

                                                                                                                Paschim Medinipur