Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/420/2018

A Abdul Rouff - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Housing Developement Finance Corp - Opp.Party(s)

R Annamalai

22 Sep 2022

ORDER

Date of Complaint Filed : 09.11.2018

Date of Reservation      : 02.09.2022

Date of Order               : 22.09.2022

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                           : PRESIDENT

                       THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,           :  MEMBER  I 

                       THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,   : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.420/2018

THURSDAY, THE 22^nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022

Abdul Rouff,

S/o Abdul Rahim,

No.21, Amman Kovil 2^nd Street,

Railway Station Road,

Urapakkam.                                                                      ... Complainant                

 

..Vs..

 

Administrative Manager,

The Housing Development,

Finance  Corporation Ltd.,

IInd Floor, FTC Centre,

No.760, Anna Salai,

Chennai -6.                                                                   ...  Opposite Party

 

******

Counsel for the Complainant          : M/s. R. Annamalai

Counsel for the Opposite Party       : M/s. N. Ravishankar Vallatharasu

 

On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Counsel for the Complainant and the Counsel for the Opposite Party we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by Member-I, Thiru. T.R. Sivakumhar, B.A., B.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to direct the opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.12,15,000/- with 12% interest caused to the Complainant and Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony caused to the Complainant.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

The Complainant entered sale agreement purchasing Housing Koothanallur Town with condition purchase property within days the date of agreement i.e. 15.07.2017 therefore the Complainant submitted sale agreement respondent branch for obtaining loan comply within 60 days from 15.02.2017. Though assured by Respondent's employee Thiru Karthikeyan and branch Manager of Respondent but there is no communication about sanctioning of loan from the Respondent's branch. After lapse 60 days  on 03.10.2017 Complainant received a communication from Respondent that refund of excess amount by that refund excess amount by enclosing a cheque Rs. 4,315/- without any details. The Complainant submits that under the bonafide belief of Respondent/ HDFC Ltd., that get Housing loan from Respondent he applied for Pradhan Mandri Aavash Yojana Scheme amount Rs.2,65,000/- since he is eligible for the amount and the proposed Housing plot is within the Municipal Limit. The Respondent sent communication about rejection loan application and status loan application and there is no information about the status of complainants loan application due to that complaint incurred loss sale agreement amount of Rs. 50,000/- Pradhan Mandri Aavash siding amount Rs. 2,65,000/-. He had entered sale agreement purchase of at 16,00,000/ (1080 sq.ft.) housing with house in the year 2017. Now plots sold Rs. 25,00,000/-. The additional cost Rs. 9,00,000/-. The above illegal act caused the mental agony to Complainant and monetary loss to the tune of Rs.12,15,000/- and the Respondent act will  amount to deficiency in service. He had sent legal notice to Respondnet Bank through advocate. But the Respondent not sent reply complainant's legal notice. Hence the Complaint.

3. Written Version filed by the Opposite Party in brief is as follows:-

         The Complainant has filed the case stating that he entered into a sale agreement on 15-07-2017 towards purchase of property at Thiruvarur (wrongly mentioned in the Complaint as Thiruvallur) based on the assurance given by their sales executive that he would arrange for the housing loan but failed to sanction the same despite receipt of processing fee and that they returned the processing fee on 03.10.2017 a sum of Rs. 4,315/- and on 28-07-2018 a sum of Rs. 4080/- towards excess amount received and he has incurred monetary loss to the tune of 12,15,000/- towards advance paid to the Vendor - Rs. 50,000/-, loss on Pranthan Manthiri Avash Yogna - Rs,2,65,000/- and difference in increase of land cost Rs.9,00,000/- and the Opposite Party needs to be compensate the said monetary losses together with Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony. In this regard they submit that after receipt of the housing loan application, the opposite party, based on various parameters and documents submitted will have to evaluate the loan application, verify the documents submitted, undertake the property valuation work, and check the information including the customer's existing residential address, place of employment, employer credentials, residence and work contact numbers though their representatives. If they are not satisfied or convinced about the customers' credentials, they may reject the application. If they are satisfied, it may sanction the loan and send the customer an offer letter mentioning the details of the Home Loan such as Loan amount, Tenure of the loan, General terms and conditions of the loan, Rate of Interest etc., followed by the customer's acceptance to the offer by signing of the duplicate letter. It is only after the completion of the above process the loan is deemed to be sanctioned.  It is submitted that in the present case, the loan application was not considered in view that the property has a lower valuation and located in a remote area, received negative report during the background check of the Complainant, certain discrepancies were found in the in the property documents submitted by the complainant, lack of response from the given contact number. Since the property and complainant did not meet the basic requirements for sanctioning the loan, the application was rejected. Hence, in the best interest of customer relationship, the processing fee was also refunded. In any event the Complainant did not even bother to contact or follow up the status of his loan application for a very long time. It was only after the return of processing fee the complainant contacted them to know the reason for the rejection and same was communicated to him. It is not necessary to return the processing fee in such cases of rejection of loan application. They Opposite Party never guaranteed disbursal of the loan for the property and to the complainant. The property for which he submitted application is not at Thiruvallur but at Thiruvarur. Further, it also reveals that the complainant has not come before this Forum with clean hands. It was wrong to mention that the complainant received communication that the loan application was processed. After receipt of loan application, a communication will be sent stating that the application is under process and not as stated by the Complainant. By making such allegation, the Complainant is trying to misdirect this Hon'ble Forum. They had never sent any communication as if the loan has been processed and has never solicited the complainant to purchase the property or enter sale agreement with the vendor. They had  never received any such alleged sale agreement from the complainant. In fact, the alleged execution of sale agreement at the time of processing the loan application by the Complainant wass not only false but also mischievous. The alleged sale agreement is a document created for the purpose of the case to show that he had paid the alleged advance of  Rs.50,000/. Assuming without admitting that the sale agreement was entered on the date mentioned in his complaint, it does not make them liable for such act. The complainant should have ensured before entering the alleged sale agreement whether the housing loan would be provided for such property. The alleged sale agreement submitted before this Forum is an unregistered document which is against the statutory requirement. There are no other records for the complainant to show that the alleged advance of Rs.50,000/ was paid by way of cash to the Complainant's vendor which is not only false but also fictitious as no proof produced. The wrong mentioning of dates and events in this para shows the falsity of his claims. The above facts shall only negative his claim of monetary losses suffered by the Complainant. It is wrong to state that the complainant under the bonafide belief that he will get loan from Opposite Party had applied for Pranthan Manthiri Avash Yogna for subsidy amount of Rs. 2,65,000/-. In fact they are  not aware of his application as it was not informed to them at any point of time. The Complainant cannot claim any loss or claim compensation citing Pradhan Mandri Aavash Yojana plan, as he can avail this subsidy whenever he purchases his first property and the Opposite Party cannot be held liable for the same. It was wrong to allege that they did not send any communication about the rejection of the loan application and that there was no information about the status of complainant's loan application. In this regard it is submitted that there were completely lack of response on the part of the Complainant. After submitting the application, the Complainant never bothered to follow up or cooperate during our background check. Hence the processing fee was refunded to him. The averment that it is only after the receipt of the said processing fee refund, the Complainant came to know about the rejection, shows that the complainant has not followed up his loan application with them. The allegation that the property value of Rs. 16,00,000/- in 2017 has been increased to Rs. 25,00,000/- in 2018 and that he had to incur an additional cost of Rs. 9,00,000/- is nothing but ridiculous as the real estate market is down and the value of the land are decreasing day by day. No averments have been made by the Complainant that he has incurred loss to the tune of the said Rs.9,00,000/- by way of purchase of land. The above loss claimed by the Complainant is in respect of land which is yet to be purchased and such foreseeable losses cannot be claimed by the Complainant. The legal notice issued by the Complainant contained several false and frivolous allegations and hence issuance of reply is unwarranted. They had returned the balance processing fee only in the interest of maintaining good customer relationship and in keeping with the policy of customer satisfaction and not due to the complaints issued to the higher authorities. As per the terms and condition of the housing loan application the Complainant is not entitled to get any refund in respect of the processing fees as paid by him and the RBI is well aware of same and will not entertain such vexatious complaints. Sanctioning of loan is solely based on their discretion and refusal to sanction loan is not a deficiency in service. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

4.   The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-7  were marked. The Opposite Parties submitted his Written Version and Proof Affidavit of and on the side of Opposite Party Ex.B1 and Ex.B-2 were marked.

Points for Consideration

1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed in the complaint, and/or any other relief/s?

Point No.1:-

        It is an undisputed fact that the Complainant had approached the Opposite Party for  availing Housing Loan for purchase of a plot at Koothanallur Town, Thiruvarur Distict (wrongly mentioned in the complaint as Thiruvallur District) and paid a sum of Rs.8,395/- by way of cheque No.865252 dated 20.06.2017, towards processing fees to the Opposite Party.

        The disputed fact was that the Housing Loan applied by the Complainant was rejected by the Opposite Party by communication dated 03.10.2017 along with a refund cheque for a sum of Rs.4,315/- without any reason for rejection. The Complainant was with belief that the loan would be sanctioned by the Opposite Party and hence he had applied for eligible subsidy under Pradhan Mandri Aavash Yojans Scheme. The Opposite Party had not stated any reasons for rejection apart from with withholding a sum of Rs.4080/-.

        The contention of the Opposite Party in this regard was that the Complainant was not assured about sanctioning of the housing loan, as only after evaluation of the Loan Application, documents, value of the property and creditability of the Complainant would be considered. Further contended that the property under purchase was located in a remote area, received negative report against the Complainant, certain discrepancies in the property documents and lack of response form the given contact number of the Complainant, hence the loan application was rejected. Further contended that the Complainant has not shown any interest to follow up with the status of his loan application. On rejection they had refunded the processing fees of Rs.4315/-, as they are entitled for non-refundable charges of Rs.4500/- on rejection of housing loan, they had also refunded the excess amount of Rs.4080/- to the Complainant. Hence there was no deficiency of service on their part.

        On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and from perusal of the Exhibits marked on either side, it is clear that the housing loan applied by the Complainant with the Opposite Party was for purchase of the plot. Though the Complainant had averred that the Opposite Party had assured to sanction his loan application, the Complainant had not produced any documentary evidence to prove the same, further the Complainant had not produced any documentary evidence to show that he had applied for eligible subsidy amount under Pradhan Mandir Aavash Yojana Scheme.

        From the perusal of Ex.B-1 the undertaking letter dated 23.06.2017 given by the Complainant to the Opposite Party, wherein in the said letter the Complainant had accepted to forfeit the processing charges of Rs.4500/- plus taxes, in the event of rejection of his loan application, the said Ex.B-1 was not denied by the Complainant. From perusal of Ex.A-3, letter dated 03.10.2017, whereby the Opposite Party had refunded the excess amount of Rs.4,315/- after deducting their entitled process fees on rejection of the loan application. Thereafter on 30.04.2018 the Complainant had sent a legal notice to the Opposite Party and a complaint letter dated 28.06.2018 to the Complainant and information officer, Reserve Bank of India, which were marked as Ex.A-4 and Ex.A-5, respectively. By Ex.A-7 the mail dated 28.07.2018 sent by the Opposite Party to the Complainant, wherein the Oppsotie Party as an exception had processed full fee refund and under Ex.A—6 letter dated 28.07.2018 a cheque for Rs.4080/- has been sent to the Complainant. The Opposite Party had marked Ex.B-2, letter dated 04.07.2017 sent by Opposite Party’s Tiruchirapalli Branch to Kodambakkam Branch, wherein it was mentioned as, the technical clearance could not be given to the property under purchase by the Complainant, which was not denied by the Complainant. Hence it is clear that the Complainant had failed to follow up with the Opposite Party about his loan application status and the claim of the Complainant that the reason for rejection was not informed by the Opposite Party, is not sustainable. Further, the Complainant had clearly given an undertaking on 23.06.2017 as found in Ex.B-1 to forego the processing fees of Rs.4500/- plus taxes, paid to the Opposite Party, and from Ex.B-1 it is clear that the Opposite Party were entitled to retain processing fees to a sum of Rs.4500/- plus taxes, in the event of rejection of the housing loan. Hence, we hold that the Opposite Party had refunded the entire processing fees as an exception, though they are entitled to retain a sum of Rs.4500/- plus taxes, as per Ex.B-1. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Opposite Party had not committed deficiency of service. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered.

Point No.2:

As discussed and decided point no.1 as against the Complainant, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief claimed in the Complaint and/or for any other relief/s. Accordingly, Point No. 2 is answered.

In the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 22^nd of September 2022.

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	15.06.2017	Sale agreement copy for purchase of plot by the Complainant
Ex.A2	03.07.2017	Copy of the SBI Bank Statement showing the amount sent to HDFC Bank for Housing Loan
Ex.A3	03.10.2017	Letter from HDFC Ltd
Ex.A4	30.04.2018	Letter to HDFC Ltd., sent by Complainant
Ex.A5	28.06.2018	Complaint letter to RBI by complainant
Ex.A6	28.07.2018	Letter sent by the HDFC Ltd., to the Complaiannt
Ex.A7	28.07.2018	Letter sent by HDFC Ltd., to the Complainant with regard to complaint

 

 

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:-

 

Ex.B1		Copy of letter of HDFC Bank
Ex.B2	04.07.2017	Copy of Technical Report – IOM

 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT