Karnataka

Gadag

CC/27/2015

Narasingasa.N.Kabadi - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managar, Karnataka Bank Ltd & another - Opp.Party(s)

M.A.Pujar

19 Nov 2016

ORDER

ORDER DELIVERED BY

SMT.C.H.SAMIUNNISA ABRAR, PRESIDENT:

The complainant has filed this Complaint against the Opposite Parties (herein after referred in short as OPs) u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against OPs. 

2.    The brief fact of the case is that the Complainant is the businessman. The Complainant saw an advertisement of the OP No.2-Company published that they have dealing with the finance and banking business for mortgage loan, by this the Complainant submitted all the document along with fee of Rs.11,000/- through the OP No.1. After that the OP No.2 had not at all taken any steps for releasing the loan. The Complainant called OP No.2 several times through mobile OP No.2 had not responded properly. The Complainant dis-satisfied with the attitude of OP No.2, the Complainant personally approached the office of OP No.2 by spending the huge amount since OP No.2’s Office is located in Vas-co-da-gama, Goa. Even though OP No.2 had not responded properly, hence Complainant issued a legal notice to OP No.2 on 01.08.2015 calling the OP to release the loan amount within the receipt of the legal notice. The article returned with an endorsement stating that the party closed and left RTS. From the above conduct of OP No.2 he had committed deficiency in service and untrade practice towards the Complainant. As such, Complainant further submits that if he approached to the other bank he can get the loan easily, but OP No.2 gave pain and mental agony and torture by his attitude. He has received a Rs.11,000/- from the Complainant for title verification of the property and Complainant submits that Complainant spends Rs.5,000/-  to collect revenue records of his property. Hence, Complainant prays to order for recovery of Rs.11,000/- which had been paid by the Complainant to OP No.1 along with 18% interest and Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and torture and prayed to order other relief, the Forum deems fit. These are the pleadings of Complainant.        

 

3.      The Complaint was registered and notice was issued to the OPs. OP No.1 appeared through his counsel and filed his written version. While OP No.2 remained absent.

4.      The brief fact of the Written Version of OP No.1 is that OP NO.1 denied the Complaint against him and submits that there is no claim against OP No.1 and the transaction between the Complainant and OP No.2 are not consent to OP No.1. Further, OP NO.1 submits that the Complainant deposited Rs.11,000/- on 09.06.2015 in the OP No.1’s Bank and as per the direction of the Complainant OP No.1 has remitted the said amount to OP No.2 on same day. Hence, the OP No.1 submits that there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP No.1. Hence, Complaint against OP No.1 is liable to be dismissed with cost.

5.      On the back ground of the above said pleadings, the Complainant himself examined before this Forum as CW-1 and got marked the documents as EX C1 to C3 and unmarked documents are also produced before the Forum. The documents are as follows:

1)  EX C1 Legal Notice,

2)  EX C2 Postal Acknowledgement,

3)  EX C3 Postal Cover,

Unmarked Documents:

1. Vijay Vani paper cutting,
2. Loan Documents along with property documents are produced 28 pages in number. 

On the other hand Ops have not filed any affidavit and documents on behalf of their defence.

6.      On the basis of above said pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, the following points arises for adjudications are as follows:   

1.   2.	Whether the Complainant proves that there was untrade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1 and 2?   Whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs as sought?
3.	What Order?

 

Our Answer to the above Points are:-

Point No.1 – Partly Affirmative,

Point No.2 – Partly Affirmative,

Point No.3 – As per the final order.

                

R E A S O N S

7.      POINT NO.1 and 2:  Since both the points are inter-link and identical, we proceed with both the points together.

 

8.   The Complainant filed this Complaint against the Ops for deficiency in service and untrade practice. The Complainant submits that he had seen an advertisement in a daily paper Vijay Vani, in which the OP No.2 had advertised that they will provide all type of mortgage loans in leading financial company in Goa. Complainant called to the number given in the advertisement and OP No.2 suggested him to pay Rs.11,000/- for scrutiny their property documents. As such, Complainant paid the same through OP No.1’s Bank, but OP No.2 after receiving the amount not responded properly. On the other hand, OP No.1 was present before the Forum and submitted that as per the desire of the Complainant OP No.1 received the amount and remitted to the account of OP No.2. Hence, OP No.1 had not made any deficiency in service or untrade practice and further submit that Complainant cannot claim anything against OP No.1. The OP No.2 remained absent even after several steps taken by the Forum and Complainant.

 

9.      While going through the Complaint and documents it’s clear that OP No.1 had only received the amount of the Complainant and remitted to the OP No.2’s account, there is no deficiency or untrade practice by OP No.1. Moreover, Complainant had not claimed any compensation from OP No.1. Here, we have to see that there is any deficiency from OP NO.2. 

 

10.       After scanning the documents produced by the Complainant Vijay Vani Paper dated: 26.04.2015 in the classified column there is an advertisement which attracted the customers by publishing “LOAN FOR LEADING FINANCE COMPANY IN GOA” AND ALL TYPES OF MORTGAGE LOAN IS AVAILABLE ABOVE 50 LAKHS TO 49 CRORES. DSA WELCOME, CALL PHONE NO.083246421/ 22”. This is the advertisement given by the OP No.2. The Complainant produced another unmarked document i.e. Document No.1 which was given by the OP No.2 to the Complainant. In which, OP No.2 clearly mentioned the charges for scrutiny of the document. OP No.2 had demanded Rs.11,000/- from the Complainant for scrutiny of document. Unmarked Document No.2 Pay-in-Slip shows that the Complainant had paid Rs.11,000/- to OP No.2. Document No.3 to 20 are the documents of the property in the name of Complainant. While going through documents on record, it is clearly shows that the OP No.2 had intentionally neglected the request of the Complainant before receiving the amount he had communicated with the Complainant regularly after receiving the amount of Rs.11,000/- the OP No.2 had neglected the Complainant it shows that the intention of OP No.2 was to fraud  the customers. Hence OP No.2 had practiced an unfair trade.  Hence, we come to the conclusion that OP NO.2 is liable to pay the amount deposited by the Complainant and other reliefs. Hence, we answer Point No.1 in partly affirmative and Point No.2 in partly affirmative.           

 

  11.     POINT NO.3: For the reasons and discussion made above and finding on the above points, we proceed to pass a following: 

//ORDER//

1. This Complaint is partially allowed.
2. OP No.2 is directed to return the amount of Rs.11,000/- (Rupees eleven thousand) collected towards the charges pertaining to sanctioning the mortgage loan with interest @ 09% p.a. from the date remittance, till realization.
3. OP No.2 is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) towards Mental agony and harassment made to the complainant and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) towards litigation charges.
4. Complaint against OP No.1 is hereby dismissed. 
5. Send the copies of this order to the parties free of cost.

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court 19^th day of November, 2016)

 

Member

President