Karnataka

Gadag

CC/40/2016

Krishna. L. Jandri - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Diwan Housing Finance Corp Ltd and Others - Opp.Party(s)

V.H.Merwade

03 Jun 2017

ORDER

JUDGEMENT 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 (2) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against OPs.

2.    The nutshell of the complaint, Complainant is permanent resident of Gadag. He is having a plot and he intended to construct the house, Op No.1 to 3 are having an office of housing finance corporation as such complainant approach the OP No.1 for financial assistance as per the procedure of Op no.1 the complainant had submitted the original title deeds and relevant documents and further for the security of loan complainant submitted a cheque book containing 20 cheque leaves in it during 2014.

3.      The Complainant had paid Rs.17,888/- for processing fee and other expenses but Op without cause rejected the application of complainant after collecting all the documents and fees, Hence complainant issued a legal notice through his advocate on 19.08.2015 the notices had been served on them but they have not replied to the same hence Complainant prayed for the compensation in total  Rs.75,388/- and prayed to order against the Op.

4.  The complaint is registered and notices were ordered to the Ops as such OP No.1 and 2 appeared through their advocate and filed Vakalat and written version. Op No.3 remained absent.

BRIEF FACT OF THE WRITTEN VERSION OF OP 1 AND 2

The Ops submit that complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable in law and denied all the contention made in the complaint and submits that the complainant approached OP No.1 for sanctioning the loan amount to construct a house but here Complainant falsely submits that he need to construct a new house, since there was already a constructed house and to cheat and dupe the respondents with a utterer motive he asked the loan but Ops have rejected the same and Ops submits that the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.17,888/- towards the process fee with a condition that loan will be disbursed only after fulfillment of all  the terms and condition of the respondent.

The Op  No.1 while obtaining the valuation report and legal scrutiny report from the consent engineer and the penal advocate as per the report it found that the Complainant already constructed the house in the property by suppressing the material fact with and intention to made fraud and mischief, Hence Op refused to sanction the loan amount Op no.1 informed the complainant to collect the cheque book through registered post acknowledgment on 11.02.2015 but complainant had not claimed the said RPAD and same was returned to Op No.1 on 20.02.2015. Hence OPs prayed to dismiss the complaint since they have not committed any deficiency in service.

5.     In the background of the above said pleadings, the Complainant has examined PW1 in his support of the allegation. The documents produced are:

1.   EX C-1 Receipt dated: 21.11.2014 

2. EX C-2 Letter of offer cum Acceptance dt: 15.11.2014.

3. EX C-3 Letter issued by complainant dt: 01.12.2015.

4.   EX C-4 Legal notice to respondent dt: 19.08.2015.

5.   EX C-5 to EX C-7 Postal Acknowledgment.

6. EX C-8 to EX C-10 Income Tax Returns.

7. EX C-11 Sale Deed.

8. EX C-12 License.

Un-Marked documents,

1. Tax pay counter file.
2. License Plan.
3. Sale deed.   

6.      On the other hand Op No.1 present filed their chief affidavit and swears the affidavit behalf of Op No.2 also.

The documents are as follows:

1. Letter of Offer cum Acceptance.
2. Technical Scrutiny report along with the Photos.
3. Legal Scrutiny Report.
4. R.P.A.D issued to the Complainant the cover is “Not Claimed”.

On perusal of above documents and argument heard from both the sides, this being the pleading, the points arises before us for adjudication is as follows:

1.   2.   3.	Whether the Complainant proves that Ops made deficiency in service?   Whether the Complainant is entitled for relief?   What Order?

 

Our Answer to the above Points are:-

Point No.1 – Negative,

Point No.2 – Affirmative,

Point No.3 – Partly Affirmative.

 

Upon evolution of the evidence are used by the Parties before the forum we discuss the above points as under:

      

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.

    The complainant filed the complaint stating that Op made deficiency in service and practiced unfair trade since Op’s are the financial institution and they finance for constructions of house, the complainant approach the Op No.1 for construction of a house as per the instruction of Op No.1 complainant submits the documents to the Op No.1 and Op No.1 assures that they have sanctioned Rs.10 lakh and directed the complainant to pay the process fee and other expenses as per the direction of Op no.1 complainant paid the amount of Rs.17,888/- along with a cheque book of 20 leaves, After that without valid reason the Op refused to pay the amount, On the other hand Op denied the allegation made by the complainant and submits that on the condition that the loan will be disbursed only after fulfillment of terms and conditions and further submits that while scrutiny of the documents and spot inspection, It reveals that the complainant had already constructed the house, and to the cheat this Ops complainant approached Op, hence they refused to sanction the loan amount. As per the cheque book is concerned OPs have sent the cheques along with another document and a cheque of Rs.12,420/- by RPAD but the Complainant had not claimed the same.      

8.      We have examined the entire materials on record and give a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us, the basic issues involved in this case is that the Ops have refused to sanction the loan beside receiving all the documents and process fee from the complainant, we have to go through the document as EX C-11 it is the main document which speak the entire truth, the document is Sale deed of a plot were the complainant wanted to construct a house, in this document it is clearly mentioned that there is house while complainant had purchased the property and one more thing is revealed that, this document also shows that there is a vacant land and he can construct the house in that area also.

9.     The Complainant had produced all the relevant document to the Ops for sanctioning the loan, at the prior stage of the application for loan the Ops have collected the processing fee and other documents, 12 blank cheques, blank stamp paper, the controversy start here without sanctioning the loan the Ops have collected a huge amount towards processing fee apart from this the Complainant had spent additional amount to fulfill the Ops condition, after collecting an amount of Rs.17,888/- towards processing charges assuring the Complainant that loan will be sanctioned.

 

10.   The Complainant submits that he had produced 20 blank cheques, the Ops have return 12 blank cheques as per EX C2 by RPAD, but the Complainant had not claimed the postal article which had been produced before the Forum by Ops which contains 12 blank chques signed by the Complainant and a blank signed stamp paper along with the cheque of Rs.12,420/- in favour of the Complainant which clears that the Ops have un-necessarily collected the amount and security documents like blank chequs and stamp papers etc. without sanctioning the loan and also the OP had deducted an amount Rs.5,468/- which is unfair, without sanctioning or scrutinize the document it is very unfair to collect the amount and document for the security of the loan without sanctioning or disbursing the same.

11.    As per the allegation of the Complainant that a Complainant has furnish 20 blank cheques to the OP, but the OP have denied the same and accepted that the Complainant had submitted 12 blank cheques as per the documents EX C2 and also Complainant failed to prove that he had deposited 20 blank cheques with the Ops.

 

12.    The Ops have refunded an amount of Rs.12,420/- through cheque but it is not encashed by the Complainant since he had not claimed the RPAD cover which is before the Forum, without sanctioning the loan, OPs cannot charge such a huge fee which will be a burden to the customer. In view of the above findings we have concluded that Ops have committed an unfair trade practice since Complainant is liable for compensation and other relief. Hence, we answer Point No.1 in affirmative and Point No.2 is in partly affirmative.            

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

//ORDER//

1. This Complaint is partially allowed.

 

2. Ops are directed to refund the entire amount of Rs.17,888/- (Rupees seventeen thousand eight hundred and eighty eight) to the Complainant and Complainant have to collect the cheques and stamp paper from the Forum.

 

3. Further, Ops are directed to pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) to the Complainant towards mental agony and harassment and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) towards litigation charges.

 

4. Further Ops are directed to comply this Order within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which the Ops are liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a., till realization.

5.  Send a copy of this Order to both parties free of cost.  

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court 03^rd day of June, 2017)

 

 

Member

President