BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION.
KAMRUP
C.C.No.32/2012
Present: I) Shri A.F.A.Bora, M.Sc.,L.L.B.,A.J.S(Rtd.) -President
II) Smti Archana Deka Lahkar,B.Sc.,L.L.B. -Member
III) Sri Jamatul Islam,B.Sc,Former Dy
Director, FCS & CA - Member
Sri Lalit Ch.Mahanta -Complainant
Resident of vill Maihati
District Kamrup
-vs-
I) Life Insurance Corporation of
Housing Finance Ltd, Mumbai -Opposite parties
2) Senior Branch Manager,
L.I.C. Housing Finance Guwahati -1,
Fancy Bazar.
3) Senior Branch Manager,
L.I.C. Housing Finance, cum L.I.C. Public Information officer,
Fancy Bazar, Guwahati
4) M/S Sankardev Real Estate Developer,
Pandu, Guwahati
5) Sri Amar Deep Kalita , Field Officer,
L.I.C. Housing Finance
Guwahati -1,Fancy Bazar
6) Sri Mrinal Kumar Sarma ,
Agent, L.I.C. Housing Finance Guwahati -1,
Fancy Bazar .
Appearance
Learned advocate Mr.R.M.Choudhury & R.Baruah for the complainant .
Learned advocate Mr.K.K.Nandy & Mr.P.Borgohain for the opp.party
Date of filing written argument:- 26.11.2018
Date of oral argument:- 17.12.20 and 21.1.21
Date of judgment: - 21.01.2021
JUDGMENT
1) This is a complaint filed by one Sri Lalit Ch.Mahanta resident of vill Maihati, of district Kamrup against the opp.parties 1) Life Insurance Corporation of Housing Finance Ltd, Mumbai 2) Senior Branch Manager, L.I.C. Housing Finance Guwahati -1,Fancy Bazar , 3) Senior Branch Manager, L.I.C. Housing Finance, cum L.I.C. Public Information officer, Fancy Bazar, Guwahati, 4) M/S Sankardev Real Estate Developer, Pandu, Guwahati 5) Sri Amar Deep Kalita , Field Officer, L.I.C. Housing Finance Guwahati -1,Fancy Bazar 6) Sri Mrinal Kumar Sarma , Agent, L.I.C. Housing Finance Guwahati -1,Fancy Bazar . The complaint petition was rejected .
2) The complainant stated that he agreed to purchase a flat/unit from the Developer/Builder M/S Sankardev Real Estate Developer, having Head office at Barbazar, Pandu, Guwahati and booked in the Sankardev Ganga Nivas of the said builder by submitting application form dtd. 13.5.2011 for a total consideration of a sum Rs. 18,74,000/- . He also agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 1.25,000/- in addition to the cost/charge of lift, generator, transformer, individual electrical connection , panel board etc. The price being Rs.19,99,000/- to be paid in six installment on the basis of the progress of construction of the flat.
3) The complainant operated life insurance policy with the Life Insurance Corporation of India under Policy No. 488722591dtd. 10.11.2006 and 453362997 dtd. 21.11.08 for Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- respectively.
4) The complainant stated that he applied for a loan under the scheme of L.I.C.Housing Finance Ltd. from their Guwahati Branch (Opp.Party No. 2) on 19.10.2011 submitting all the relevant required documents. It is further submitted that the opp.party No. 2 agreed to sanction the flat loan/ financial assistance to the claimant for purchasing the flat from M/S Sankardev Real Estate Developer, Pandu, Guwahati ( opp.party No. 4) and as such the Senior Branch Manager , Life Insurance Corporation , Housing Fianace Ltd. S.S.Road, Fancy Bazar , Guwahati (opp.pary No.2) accepted the processing fees of Rs. 1,103/- only from the complainant through Sri Mrinal Kumar Sarma , Agent, L.I.C. Housing Finance Guwahati -1,Fancy Bazar (opp.party No. No. 6) on 19.10.2011 under application No. 2106000487.
5) The complainant , thereafter deposited the first installment for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- only to M/S Sankardev Real Estate Developer, Pandu, Guwahati (opp.party No.4) .
6) The complainant , subsequently enquired regarding the flat loan with the opp.party No. 2 , Senior Branch Manager, L.I.C. Housing Finance Guwahati -1,Fancy Bazar, but the opp.party No. 2 orally inform him that the flat loan not be sanctioned /approved as the claimant is not an officer rank in the department and his scale of pay is not more than 10,000/- per month. The opp.party No. 1 & 2, Life Insurance Corporation of Housing Finance Ltc, Mumbai and Senior Branch Manager, L.I.C. Housing Finance Guwahati -1,Fancy Bazar did not provide any rules guidelines and policy of the L.I.C.Housing Finance at the time of accepting the processing fees nor provided any documents of the flat loan.
7) The complainant again submitted an application before the Senior Branch Manager , L.I.C.Housing Finance Ltd. cum Public Information Officer ,(Opp.party No.3) requesting him on the present status of the loan, but the opp.party No. 3 did not provide any information to the claimant . The complainant also stated that Sri Amar Deep Kalita , Field Officer, L.I.C.Housing Finance Ltd. submitted the field verification report before the Senior Branch Manager, L.I.C. Housing Finance Ltd. after observing all formalities .
8) It is alleged by the complainant that due to non-sanctioning / approving the flat loan by the opp.party No. 1,2 & 3 complainant has suffered mental agony , financial hard-ship the remaining installment to the builder M/S Sankardev Real Estate Developer, Pandu, Guwahati (opp.party No.4). Therefore, the complainant prays for awarding Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) only as compensation against mental agony and financial hard-ship caused to him by the opp.party 1,2 & 3.
9) The proceeding was contested by the opp.party no. 1,2 & 3 by filing written statement alleging the fact that the opp.parties have never assured the complainant of rendering any services for facilities and hence there is no deficiency of services and laches so as to attract the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The case against opp.party no. 5 and opp.party no.6 proceeded exparte.
10) The opp.party no. 1,2 & 3 stated that grant of a loan to any intending borrower is the discretion of the financial institution and the loan having not granted by the opp.parties cannot amount to deficiency of services and negligence .
11) The opp.party no. 1,2 & 3 stated that the complainant entered into an agreement between opp.party No. 4 M/S Sankardev Real Estate Developer, Pandu, Guwahati for purchase of the flat to which opp.party No. 1,2 & 3 have nothing to comment on that.
12) The opp.party no. 1,2 & 3 stated that the Life Insurance Corporation Housing Finance Ltd. bound to follow it own guideline , norms . It has to consider several factors including viability of the project holder, the honesty of the borrower , and his capacity to refund etc. and further stated that they have their own yardsticks for appraising a proposal which could defer from other financial institutions. The claimant was informed to approach any other financial institution. The refusal of the financial institution to provide financial assistance to the claimant cannot and does not constitute any illegal action nor the same violates the fundamental infringes the provisions of the consumer protection act , 1986.
13) The opp.party no. 1,2 & 3 further stated that after having considered the petition of the claimant for grant of a loan the same was not found within the norms and guidelines of the opp.party No. 1,2 & 3 and the proposal of the claimant was not accepted and he was informed immediately.
Hence ,the submission made in the complaint are not tenable under the facts and circumstances .
14) Opposite party No.4 filed written statement. In their written statement they stated that the complainant entered into a registered deed of agreement and sale of flat bearing No. 7301/2011 dtd. 17.8.2011. As per the agreed terms and conditions of the deed of agreement the complainant is liable to pay the installment as per the schedule of payment and the claimant deposited the first installment for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the opp.party No. 4 Sankardev Real Estate Developer, Pandu, Guwahati. Complainant assured him to approve the housing loan from LICHFL, but subsequently the opp.party No. 4 came to know that the flat loan was not sanctioned nor the remaining installment were paid by the LICHFL to the opp.party No.4. Thereafter the opp.party No.4 informed the complainant that they cannot wait for indefinite period for payment of the outstanding amount against the flat and demanded to make payment of the outstanding amount of Rs. 13,99,050/- within two months failing which booking of the flat by the complainant to be cancelled and they shall refund the amount as per stipulation made in the agreement.
15) Opp.party No.4 further stated that the proceeding is bad for mis-joindr of parties in-as-much-as the opp.party No. 1 & 2 the complainant has not asked for any relief against the other opp.parties including the opp.party No.4.
16) After due consideration of the pleading of the parties we have come to a conclusion that complainant proposed to purchase a flat from opp.party No.4 for which he had deposited the first installment of Rs.5,00,000/- to M/S Sankardev Real estate Developer (Opp.party No.4)
17) We have gone through the documents available with record vide Ext. 2, Ext. 3, Ext. 3 & Ext. 5. The pertinent question that comes to our mind to determine whether LICHFL i.e. Opp.party No.1,2 & 3 are negligent in providing the service to the complainant after receipt of the process fee from the complainant and secondly it is to be looked into whether opp.party No.4 have not discharged his responsibility as per agreement and have not discharge his duty towards the complainant . The matter of dispute arosed with the opp.party No.1 , 2 &3 and not with the opp.party No. 4 as because the opp.party No.4 is awaiting for receipt of second installment when the complainant have failed to pay the amount from the LICHFL loan.
18) It is argued by the complainant that as per clause 10(B) of the agreement for sale the opp. party No.4 will provide the needful service in getting the loan from L.I.C. H.F.L. The complainant have applied for housing loan along with required documents by payment of an amount of Rs. 1,103/- as process fee on 19.10.11, but aforesaid loan was not sanctioned by the opp.party after getting field verification report and it is alleged that op.party No. 4 have not issue any document, notice as per the clause of agreement for the payment of the installment due. This part of the submission regarding act of the opp.party No. 4 is not found under the purview of deficiency in service.
19) It is further alleged that the Ext. 5(A) the RTI application regarding status of the aforesaid loan was not responded by opp.party No.2, but complainant was verbally informed that his flat loan will not be sanctioned as the complainant is not an officer rank personnel of the Railway Department and his scale of pay is not more than Rs.10,000/-.
20) Here, learned counsel pointed out the version of the complainant whether he admitted that his scale of pay was Rs.12,000/- and for that reason not sanctioning the loan by the opp.party No. 1,2 & 3 is without any valid reason.
21) We do not find any reason to hold conclusively that not sanctioning a loan by the opp.party to the complainant is amounting to deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant.
22) The next point that has been raised by learned counsel on behalf of the complainant is that the RTI application was not responded and opp.party have failed to provide him requisite information and for the reason of such act the complainant alleged that the service of the opp.party towards the complainant amounts to deficiency in service.
23) We have taken note of the statement made on behalf of opp.party No. 1,2 & 3 which clearly speaks of the fact that the opp.parties have never assured the complainant of rendering any service and as such there is no deficiency in service .
24) The O.P.W.1 Mr.Sanjay Kumar further depose that grant of a loan to any intending borrower is the discretion of the financial institution and loan having not granted to the complainant cannot amounting to deficiency in services. We have also of the similar view that the L.I.C.H.F.L. authority declined to accept the proposal for grant of a loan to the complainant which cannot be termed as deficiency in service towards the complainant as a consumer. It is true that refusal to grant any loan by a financial institution cannot amount to any arbitrary action to inflict mental agony and hardship to the complainant.
25) The evidence of O.P.W. 4 M/S Sankar Real Estate represented by Mr. Dharmendra Das reveals the same fact about payment of first installment amounting to Rs. 4,00,000/- to the builder as per agreed terms and agreement Deed No. 7310 /2011. Later on complainant paid Rs.1,00,000/- on 29.8.2011 and due receipt was issued by the opp.party No.4. The op.party on next state dtd. 19.3.12 requested the complainant to make outstanding payment of Rs. 13,99,050/- within 15 days. The opp.party No. 4 in evidence stated clearly that they have issued notices informing the fact that on failure of payment of outstanding dues booking of the flat will be cancelled after two months and by notice stated 21.5.2012 complainant was informed that opp.party had been compelled to cancelled the booking of the flat and requested the complainant to take refund of the advance money of Rs. 5,00,000/-.
26) We have perused Ext. A & B . The notice issued by opp.party No.4 and also taking notice Ext. 3 the reply letter dtd. 4.6.12 sent by the complainant . This part of the pleadings of the opp.party is not within purview of the Consumer Act and whatever the dispute remain between the parties outside the consumer act may be dealt with by the proper forum for disposal of civil disputes and we have no comment on it.
27) In our considered view none of the opp.parties are found negligent in discharging their services to the complainant. There is not a single occasion arosed on the part of the opposite party for rendering any deficiency in services to the complainant. Not sanctioning a loan by the opposite party in favour of the complainant is not amounts to deficiency in services . In the result the complaint petition in question is found without merit and is dismissed. The parties will bear their own cost.
Given under our hand and seal of the District Commission, Kamrup, this the 21st day of January,2021.
Smt A.D.Lahkar Md.J.Islam Shri A.F.A.Bora
Member Member President
