Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/496/2014

Deepak K Gouder. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager. Dewan Housing Finance Corp Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

R.T.Patil.

11 Mar 2016

ORDER

(Order dictated by Shri. B.V.Gudli, President)

:ORDER:

 

          The complainant has filed complaint against Opponent U/s.12 of C. P. Act alleging deficiency in service of non sanctioning of loan.

 

          2) Opponents appeared through counsel and filed their objection.

 

          3) In support of the claim of the complainant, complainant has filed his affidavit by way of evidence, some original documents are produced by the complainant and on the other hand opponent has filed their objection and also filed affidavit.

 

          4) We have taken argument of the complainant as heard after giving sufficient opportunity for argument and perused the records and the opponent has filed written argument.

 

          5) Now the point for our consideration is that whether the complaint has proved deficiency in service on the part of the opponent and entitle to the reliefs sough?

 

          6) Our finding on the point is partly in affirmative, for the following reasons.

:: REASONS ::

 

          7) On perusal contents of the complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant, the complainant alleges that he approached the opponents finance on 9/6/2012 for availing housing loan and at that time opponent asked process fee of Rs.4,412/- and accordingly the complainant paid process fee through cheque bearing No.160187 drawn on Syndicate Bank Saudatti and the same was encashed on 14/9/2012. The complainant further alleges that the opponent has taken one blank cheque with signature and certain documents in respect of loan, but the opponent did not sanctioned the loan evenafter the complainant approached several times to get sanctioned the loan. The loan was neither allowed or rejected and till today the opponent has not sanctioned the loan and not returned the original documents, blank cheque even after process fee has been paid by the complainant. The complainant further alleges that due to delay and harassment by the opponent the complainant suffer loss of Rs.5 lakhs as the cost of the construction escalated in the year 2013 and the complainant issued legal notice on 26/11/2013 demanding refund of process fee of Rs.4,412/- along with 18% P.A. interest and claimed compensation of Rs.3 lakhs and the complainant further alleges that the opponent replied to the legal notice on 3/12/2013 denying all the allegation made in the notice and prayed to allow the complaint as prayed.

 

          8) On the other hand the opponent filed the objection and contends that, it is true the complainant approached the opponent finance for loan and after verifying the credit worthiness has sent letter of offer cum acceptance on 26/9/2012 and the complainant has signed the letter. The letter contends the terms and conditions of the offer and the loan will be disbursed only after fulfillment of terms and conditions. The opponent further contends that, it is true that the opponent collected the process fee for verification of documents of Rs.4,412/- for processing the application and verification of documents. The opponent further contends that, they have verified the documents photo copies of the complainant and credit worthiness and found that the title deed of the property of the complainant is not clear and as per the clause 8 of the letter of offer cum acceptance the loan application of the complainant is not acceptance and the fact is intimated to the opponent but the complainant did not turn up to enquire about loan application. The opponent further contends that, it is false to say that they did not respond properly and no instruction and information given to the complainant in regard to loan transaction. The opponent further contends that suddenly the complainant issued a letter to the head office on 25/10/2013 and same has been received via email on 11/11/2013 and the opponent has taken special approach and agreed to pay Rs.3,000/- out of Rs.4,412/- and same was intimated to the complainant and prayed to dismissed the complaint.

 

          9) On perusal of the objection and allegations of the complainant and also documents produced by the complainant, the point to be considered is here that the loan claim by the complainant has not been sanctioned by the opponent after collecting the process fee of Rs.4,412/-, as title of the property was not clear. This fact of non clear of title to the property of complainant has been clearly admitted by the complainant himself in his affidavit filed on 7/1/2015 on 3^rd page at para No.14 which reads as under;

        “14) It is further submitted by this complainant that the property on which complainant intends to construct the house is an ancestral property of the complainant.  Therefore the complainant is unable to produce the title deed in respect of the said property. The property is inherited by the complainant’s family more than 200 years therefore the complainant is not having any title deed in respect of the said property. It is further submitted by this complainant only on this ground the loan application of the complainant cannot be rejected or pending.”

 

          By reading above para it is clear that the complainant is unable to produce the title deed as the property inherited by the complainant’s family for more than 200 years. As we have understood it is general practice of the bank or financial institution that before sanctioning loan to their customer or to the customer who approached for the loans of any kind, to verify the documents and if the bank satisfied that the document putforth as security for the loan can be recovered if the customer becomes defaulter. In the present case on hand when the complainant himself admits that the title deed is not upto mark or cannot produce the same, on this itself the opponent finance has raise the objection and rejected the loan application of the complainant.

 

          10) The another allegation of the complainant is that due to non sanction of the loan he has suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.5 lakhs and prayed to direct the opponent to pay the loss suffered. To show that the complainant has suffered loss due to rejection of loan by the opponent, the complainant has not putforth any documents to show that he has sustained loss and the market price of the construction increased and the opponent are liable for the same. Hence the contention of the complainant cannot be accepted and believed.  The another allegation of the complainant is that the Syndicate Bank of Saundatti sanctioned loan to the complainant and to show that the complainant has produced a Xerox copy of mortgage deed executed in favour Syndicate Bank. But as per our knowledge the banks or institution are have their own terms and conditions in regards to their respective banks. Hence only that the other bank have sanctioned the loan on the property of the complainant, this opponent bank cannot be held in deficiency of service for non considering the loan application of the complainant. We are of the opinion that, though the opponent has not sanctioned the loan for the reason that the title was not clear, the opponent has rightly rejected the claim of the complainant and the complainant prays to refund the amount paid towards the process charges, he is not entitled for the same, but the document dated 25/10/2013 which is address to the complainant by the opponent wherein at unnumbered para 4 of the letter we notice that the opponent has requested the complainant to collect the amount. Accordingly the opponent in his objection has admitted to return of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant. Therefore the complainant is not entitled for the amount as prayed in the complaint, but as the opponent admitted to pay Rs.3,000/- to the complainant, we pass the order accordingly. The opponent finance has given reply to the legal notice issued by the complainant mentioning the difficulty in accepting the loan application and also that the opponent at para No.6 of their objection at page 2 have admitted to refund the amount of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant out of the process fee of Rs.4,412/- in total. Hence considering the above discussion and after perusing the documents produced by the complainant we are of the opinion that the complaint is entitle for the refund amount of Rs.3,000/- as per the admission given by the opponent finance.

 

11) Taking into consideration of the facts, evidence on record and the discussion made here before deficiency in service on the part of the opponent has not been proved. However the complainant is entitle for Rs.3,000/- from the opponent.

 

 

          12)  Accordingly, following order.

 

ORDER

          The complaint is partly allowed.

 

The opponent is hereby directed to pay Rs.3,000/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 4% P.A. from the date of filing the complaint i.e., on 11/7/2014 till realization of entire amount, the above order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of this order.

And also that the opponent is directed to return the blank cheque and other documents to the complainant if they are in the custody within 30 days from the date of this order with due acknowledge from the complainant.

 

        (Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 11^th day of March 2016)

 

Member                    Member                         President

gm*