Complaint filed on:29-11-2023
Disposed on:31-05-2024
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU
DATED THIS THE 31st DAY OF MAY, 2024
PRESENT
SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, B.Com., LLM., PRESIDENT
SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc. (Agri), LLB., MBA., MEMBER
SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A., LLB. (Spl)., LADY MEMBER
CC.No.171/2023
Sri.Vijayashankar.S.S
S/o Siddappa, aged
About 39 years, R/o
Kushi Mane, behind
Lakshmiranganaha
Choultry Gularive,
Gulur Hobli, Tumkur Taluk.
……………….Complainant/s
(By Smt.Navya.B – Advocate)
V/s
The Manager,
Bandhan Bank Ltd.,
Gruha Centre (Home Loan
Department), Silver Land Mark,
The HUT Hotel, 1st Floor,
M.G.Road, Tumakuru.
……………….Opposite Party/s
(By Shri.B.S.Mahendra – Advocate)
: O R D E R :
BY SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH – LADY MEMBER
This complaint is filed by the complainant Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the Opposite Party (hereinafter called as OP) to direct the OP to pay the subsidy amount of Rs.2,81,760-00 with interest and to pay the compensation of Rs.4,00,000-00 to the complainant.
2. It is the case of the complainant that, the complainant is the beneficiary of housing loan under Pradhana Mantri Awas Yojana (hereinafter called as PMAY) scheme. The complainant has borrowed the home loan of Rs.8,50,000-00 vide home loan account No.925/52 by the OP. The complainant has mortgaged the property with the OP and constructed the house. At the time of mortgaging the property the OP has told that subsidy will be given later after getting the same from the concerned department under PMAY-CLSS. By believing the words of the OP, the complainant has waiting for the subsidy. But the OP has not enlarge the benefits of subsidy to the complainant even though the housing loan has been sanctioned under the PMAY scheme. The OP has not moved for getting subsidy from the concerned department. Several approaches and request to the OP are went in vain and no response was received by the complainant. Though the complainant issued the legal notice to the OP on 26.09.2023, the op has not replied the same. Hence, this complaint.
- The op has appeared before this commission through counsel after receiving the notice from this commission and filed version.
- In the version op has denied all the allegations made by the complainant as false and admitted that the complainant has borrowed the housing loan from the op by mortgaging the property bearing house No.52, New Kahatha No.68/1 and 68/2, Gulaharive Village, Guluru Grama Panchayath, Tumkur. Further, op has denied that, the complainant has approached the op sanction the loan under the PMAY scheme. Further op has submitted that, to get the benefit under the PMAY scheme, the mortgaged property should be in the name of woman jointly with husband or fully individual in her name, then only she can apply for the loan under the PMAY scheme, but in the instant case, the mortgaged property is in the name of the complainant hence he can not apply for housing loan under the PMAY scheme and not entitled to get any subsidy under the PMAY scheme. Hence, prays for the dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost.
- Complainant is filed his affidavit evidence with eight documents which are marked as Ex.C1 to Ex.C8. The op by name, Sri.R.Jayaram filed his affidavit evidence with six documents, which are marked as Ex.R1 to R6.
- We have heard the both counsels with their respective written argument and perused the complaint, version, evidence of both side, written arguments and available documents in the file and points would arise for determination as follows:
- Whether the complainant proves the deficiency in service on the part of OPs?
- Is complainant entitled to the reliefs sought for?
7. Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:
Point No.1: In negative
Point No.2: As per below order
:R E A S O N S:
Point Nos.(1) & (2):-
8. Counsel for the complainant has argued that, the complainant is the beneficiary of Housing Loan under PMAY scheme of Rs.8,50,000-00 loan amount and complainant has approached the op for sanctioning of loan under the said scheme. But complainant has failed to produced any documents to establish that, the complainant is the beneficiary of housing loan under PMAY scheme of Rs.8,50,000-00 of loan amount and complainant has approached to op for sanctioning of loan particularly under the said scheme. Further, counsel for the complainant has argued that, the op has sanctioned the home loan vide home loan account No.925/52 after executing the mortgage deed. Op has also admitted the same. Further, counsel for the complainant has contended that, at the time of mortgaging the property, the op has told that the subsidy will be given later / after getting the same from the concerned department under PMAY-CLSS. But the complainant has not produce any document or evidence to prove the same. Ex.5/ copy of planning of building construction, Ex.7 / copy of loan application and Ex.8 / copy of the loan disbursement memo produced by the complainant are not establishing that the complainant is eligible for subsidy under PMAY scheme or op has promised in the time of sanctioning the home loan for giving the subsidy under PMAY scheme.
9. Further, counsel for the complainant has contended that, the op has extend the benefit of subsidy to one Dayananda Kumar.Y.V. ID No.CLS1035803157900143 and another person by name Kiran.N ID.No.CLS10568031579000008, who are also constructed their houses along with the complainant under the same scheme. Complainant has produced annexure of Ex.No.5 / copy of messages, which are reflecting that, one Sri.Dayanandakumar.Y.V and Sri.Kiran.N are received subsidy amount under PMAY scheme to their loan account. But this annexure of Ex.No.5 not reflecting that, name of the sender of the messages. Hence, it is not believable that the op sent these messages to the one Shri.Dayandakumar.Y.V and Sri.Kiran.N. Further counsel for the complainant herself submitted that, these Shri.Dayanandakumar.Y.V and Shri.Kiran.N were get subsidy under PMAY scheme from another bank. Hence, it is considered that, these people are not get any subsidy under PMAY scheme from the op. Further the complainant has also not produced any documents or evidence on what basis of eligibility criteria the one Shri.Dayananda.Y.V and one Shri.Kiran.N were get subsidy under PMAY-CLSS scheme. Further counsel for the complainant has contended in para 2 under reasons in her written arguments that, the Government has introduced all the Nationalized and scheduled banks have to extend the house loan under the said scheme and as the property standing in the joint name of the complainant and his wife. But complainant has failed to produce any mortgaged property document to show that the wife of the complainant also owner in the mortgaged property. Ex.No.4 / copy of the Form No.11B issued by the Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department is only reflecting the name of the complainant in the column of “Owners Name” and there is only photo of complainant is reflecting on the Ex.No.4. Hence, it is considered that, the wife of the complainant is not a co-owner of the mortgaged property. Further counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant has approached many times, but the op has enlarged the subsidy benefit under the PMAY scheme. But Ex.No.6 / copy of E-mail conversations, produced by the complainant reflecting that the complainant only approached on February 9th, 2023 not at time of applying for the home loan and same Ex.No.6 reflecting that, the customer care of the op has informed August 29th , 2023 to the complainant that, there is a non-eligibility issue to generate the application for PMAY scheme.
10. Per contra the counsel for the op has argued that, the complainant along with his wife approached the op, for sanction of Individual Housing loan and mortgaged the House No.52, New Katha No.68/1 and 68/2 Gularive Village, Guluru Gram Panchayath, Tumkuru. OP has produced Ex.R1 / copy of loan application, Ex.R2 / copy of loan sanction, Ex.R3 / copy of “GRUH Home Loan Agreement”, Ex.R4 / copy of Memorandum by deposit of title deeds. Ex.R1 is establishing that, the complainant and his wife has approached the op for home loan and Ex.R4 establishes that the complainant mortgaged the above said property. Further, Ex.R3 establishes that, the complainant and his wife agreed the term and conditions of the home loan sanctioned by the op. Further, counsel for the op has argued that, the complainant is not entitled to get the benefit under the PMAY scheme. Because the mortgaged property should be in the name of woman jointly with husband or fully individually in her name, then only she can apply for the loan under the PMAY scheme, but in the instant case, the mortgaged property is in the name of the complainant, hence complainant can not apply housing under the PMAY scheme and not entitled to get any subsidy. To prove the same the op has produced Ex.R5 / copy of the criteria for subsidy, which is the credit linked subsidy scheme for EWS / LIG operational Guidelines issued by Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, with effect from 01.01.2017. The same Ex.R5 reflecting the all details about features of credit linked subsidy scheme for EWS / LIG at a glance Sl.No.6 in Ex.R5 explaining about the “woman ownership / co-ownership”. The same Ex.R5 was not objected by the complainant. On perusing the Ex.R4, it is noticed that the complainant purchased the mortgaged property from one Smt.Savitha Arun B.A and registered the sale deed as a document No.TMK-1-010097/2019-20. Hence, it is considered that, the complainant purchased the said property after 01.01.2017 i.e., date reflecting on Ex.R5. Therefore, the property is considered as new acquisition.
11. Further we have go through the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs dated 21.01.2021 and point No.2.5 of guidelines is explaining as, “The houses constructed / acquired with central Assistance under the Mission should be in the name of the female head of the household or in the joint name of the male head of the household and his wife and only in cases when there is no adult female member in the family, the house can be in the name of male member of the house hold”. Therefore, the guidelines issued by the government on 21.01.2021 and as per Ex.R1, the complainant has applied for home loan on 25.03.2021 which is 3 months after the issuance of guidelines by the government. Therefore woman ownership / co ownership is mandatory for getting benefit under PMAY CLSS for Economically Weaker Sections / Low Income Groups. Hence, all criteria issued by the government on 21.01.2021 are applied to the complainant also. Further, government has given another provision in point No.2.5.1 in the guidelines dated 21.01.2021 as, 2.5.1 “To enable the applicant to avail benefits of PMAY(U), the inclusion of name of female member of the family in registered title deed / sale deed of the house acquired / purchased during the Mission period, should also be allowed at a later stage and State / UT should make provision for exemption of additional stamp duty and / or registration charges for such cases”. Hence, complainant has opportunity to inclusion of the name of his wife or any other female member of his family in the mortgaged property and the complainant not did the same. Hence, we have not found any deficiency in service on the part of the op in not generating application of the complainant for the getting benefit / subsidy under PMAY class scheme. Hence, it is considered that the complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismiss. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following;
:O R D E R:
Complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed without cost.
