BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 78/2008 Filed on 16.04.2008

Dated : 17.08.2009

Complainant:

Sajeev. S, 'Saritha Bhavan', Thrippadapuram, Kulathoor P.O, Thiruvananthapuram and employed in Aggreko Middle East Ltd., P.O. Box 16875, Jebel Ali, Dubai, UAE.

(By adv. G.S. Sanal Kumar)

Opposite parties:

1. The Manager, HDFC Bank, Home Loan Section, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

2. Vandhana Raghavan. V, Operations, HDFC Bank, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

3. Prasanth J.L, P.B. No. 2288, HDFC Ltd., HDFC House, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. Manoj Balaji)

This O.P having been heard on 29.07.2009, the Forum on 17.08.2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

Very briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant who is employed in UAE intended to avail loan from the opposite party bank to purchase a property in Thiruvananthapuram. As per the said offer and assurance made by the 3^rd opposite party the complainant sent the documents requested by the 3^rd opposite party which are the following:-

(a) Latest 3 months salary slip/salary certificate

(b) Employment contract / Work Permit.

(c) Latest 6 months Overseas & NRE/NRO Bank statement.

(d) Visa stamped passport copy

(e) Age, ID & Address Proof

(f) One photo signed across

(g) One cheque leaf in favour of HDFC Ltd.

The 1^st opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party scrutinized the said documents but to the utter shock and dismay to the complainant on 07.03.2008 an e-mail was sent by the 2^nd opposite party to the complainant informing that the copy of the employment contract is necessary and as per the same the complainant informed that he has already sent the same to the 3^rd opposite party. Thereafter the 2^nd opposite party again directed the complainant to produce the additional employment contract for sponsored staff and the complainant by taking much effort to convince the HR department after taking few days for obtaining the same by spending the precious time of the complainant thereby obtained and it was sent to the 2^nd opposite party on 10.03.2008. The 1^st opposite party after processing the documents on 07.03.2008 itself charged Rs. 7,230/-. On 13.03.2008 the 1^st opposite party sent a letter to the complainant informing that an amount of Rs. 12,50,000/- has been approved by the 1^st opposite party as loan to the complainant. As per the same the 2^nd opposite party through telephone informed the complainant to come over to Thiruvananthapuram from UAE for registration and other loan process. Therefore the complainant on 02.04.2008 took emergency leave and came to Thiruvananthapuram from UAE for the sole purpose of registration and loan purpose with the 1^st opposite party. To the utter shock and dismay to the complainant the 2^nd opposite party on 08.04.2008 informed the complainant that his loan application is rejected. The complainant immediately sent an e-mail stating that he came from Dubai only for registration purposes and also requested the 1^st opposite party to issue a proper regret letter from the 1^st opposite party to convince his HR department for the next loan processing bank. Since the loan was not sanctioned to the complainant he informed the opposite parties 1 & 2 to refund the amount of Rs. 7230/- to which the opposite parties informed that the said amount is not repayable. That the above said acts and deeds of the opposite parties 1 to 3 tantamount to gross negligence and deficiency in service for which they are liable and responsible. Therefore the complainant has approached this Forum to redress his grievances.

The opposite parties have filed their detailed version contending as follows: The complainant came in contact with the opposite parties' bank through his father. Thereupon the 3^rd opposite party had informed the complainant regarding the requirements for the sanctioning of the said loan. In pursuance of this the complainant had mailed certain documents wherein the work contract was found to be missing. Several correspondences were made to get the employment contract for sponsored staff which was later produced by the complainant. Thereafter based on the nature of job and salary of the complainant, the application was subjected to processing wherein it was found that he was eligible for an amount of Rs. 12,50,000/- as purchase loan. The above mentioned amount was sanctioned subject to technical and legal clearance. The complainant was very much aware of the terms and conditions regarding the loan disbursement which in terms specify to produce necessary documents relating to the title of property, agreement for sale (in case of purchase) which is absent in this case. The disbursement, legal and technical aspects are being done by separate wings wherein the sanctioning of loan will be done only after the green signal from all these departments. The averment that complainant was put to utter shock and dismay regarding the demand of employment contract are denied because of the fact that for the purpose of processing the application for loan the complainant had to satisfy the primary requirements regarding his job so as to arrive at his repayment capacity. The opposite party deals with public money and thus the disbursement of the same by way of loan should be done with due care and in accordance with RBI directions. The averment that the 2^nd opposite party through phone informed the complainant to come over to Thiruvananthapuram for the execution are false and baseless. The complainant failed to take note the fact that till date he is not in position to prove or mention about which property he had offered, agreement for sale and also the revenue documents. Without furnishing the above mentioned details, the opposite party will not forward the file for legal scrutiny and assess the valuation of the property offered. The allegation that on 07.04.2008 the complainant went to the 1^st opposite party's office and contacted the 2^nd opposite party through the reception telephone and enquired about the date of registration and the 2^nd opposite party replied in harsh manner, reluctant to see the complainant for fixing the date of registration are the imaginary story of the complainant just to suit the purpose. The allegations that the complainant requested for a regret letter was not considered by the opposite party because of the reason that there is no latches or negligence on the part of the opposite party and hence no question of any regret arise. The complainant on the other hand failed to fulfil the procedural requirements which resulted in rejection of his loan application. The averments that an amount of Rs. 7230/- was not returned to the complainant because of the fact that the processing charges are not refundable and this fact was well within the knowledge of the complainant when he had issued the cheque in favour of the opposite party. The allegation of gross negligence and deficiency in service are false and hence denied. The complainant failed to perform his part which resulted in rejection of his loan application. There is no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the opposite parties. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint with costs to the opposite parties.

The complainant, PW1, has filed affidavit and has been cross examined by the opposite parties. Exts. P1 to P8 were marked on his side. Opposite parties had no oral evidence.

From the contentions raised, the following issues arise for trial:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?

Points (i) & (ii):- Ext. P5 is the record proving that the opposite parties have in principle approved a housing loan for an amount of Rs. 12,50,000/- as per the terms and conditions mentioned therein. Hence the aspect for consideration by this Forum is whether the complainant has complied with the relevant terms and conditions accordingly and hitherto whether the opposite parties have not disbursed the loan.

According to the opposite parties, the complainant was aware of the terms and conditions and the complainant is silent regarding the property details. The opposite parties further contend that till date the complainant has not produced the agreement for sale or mentioned about the property or the revenue documents and the complainant has not furnished the above details without which the opposite parties will not forward the file for legal scrutiny. When the complainant was asked with regard to the same as “Property വില്‍ക്കുന്ന ആള്‍ , ടി property യുടെ details, amount, agreement for sale etc. ഒന്നും തന്നെ ഈ പരാതിയിലോ affidavit-ലോ പറയാത്തത് എന്താണ്? (Q) ഈ പരാതി ആയതിനെ സംബന്ധിച്ചല്ലല്ലോ, processing fee-യും മറ്റും വാങ്ങിയിട്ടും loan നിഷേധിച്ചതു കൊണ്ടാണ് property-യുടെ details പറയാത്തത് (A). Further the learned counsel for the opposite party had asked ഒരു sale agreement-ന്‍റെ copy ഇപ്പോള്‍ എങ്കിലും ഹാജരാക്കാന്‍ ഉണ്ടോ? (Q) എന്‍റെ കൈയ്യില്‍ ഇല്ല (A)”. Here the point to be highlighted is that the main contention of the opposite parties in their version is that the complainant had failed to fulfil certain conditions which includes the non-production of agreement for sale, details of property and also other revenue documents. Though the complainant has deposed that he had produced all the relevant documents before the opposite parties, when opposite parties raise specific contentions with regard to the non-production of relevant records, the complainant to prove his bonafide ought have produced at least the copy of the aforementioned documents or could have examined the seller.

As per special conditions in Ext. P5, loan will be disbursed subject to legal and technical clearance of the property financed. Further more, in other conditions forming part of the offer, it has been mentioned that “the loan will be served in such manner as may be required by HDFC. You shall produce such papers, reports and evidence pertaining to the property as HDFC may wish to scrutinize”. Accordingly whether the act of the opposite parties in regretting the loan application as contended in their version is justifiable? When an application for loan is received by the Bank, it is the responsibility of the Bank to assure the credit worthiness of a party. The Bank has to safeguard its interest. Bank is a public financial institution and the funds involved are public money. From the records on file and evidence it can be seen that the opposite party bank has rejected the claim of the complainant after due verification. It is a well settled position that the power of advancing loan is the discretion of Bank and no deficiency in service can be attributed in non-disbursement of loan. It is open to the Banking company to take a decision in good faith, in the exercise of its bonafide discretion as to whether it is safe to make advances of public funds to any person. In this circumstance, the bank in its discretion if decides not to grant loan after consideration of relevant facts and circumstances, no deficiency in service can be attributed on their part. So far as the complainant did not execute the necessary documents for payment of the sanctioned loan, we find no deficiency in service on the part of the Bank in disbursing the loan. Moreover, the complainant has no case that there has occurred undue delay on the part of the opposite parties in considering his loan application.

The complainant has alleged that, he has come to India From Dubai on 02.04.2008 taking emergency leave, for the sole purpose of registration and loan purposes. But the complainant has miserably failed to establish the same since there is nothing on record or evidence to substantiate the same.

Another aspect for consideration is the prayer of the complainant for refund of Rs. 7,230/- paid to the opposite parties. The opposite parties contend that the said amount has been collected from the complainant towards the processing charges and the same is not refundable. But the opposite parties have not furnished any document to support their contention that the said amount is non-refundable. In this case, before getting all the records from the complainant, the opposite parties have collected the processing charge at the initial stage itself. The opposite parties might have accrued some expenditure for considering the loan application of the complainant, but the opposite parties have collected the said amount towards processing fee without getting the entire documents, which we find as unreasonable. Hence, after deducting a nominal amount towards service charges of the opposite parties for scrutinizing the loan application, the opposite parties are hereby directed to refund an amount of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant. Since there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant is not entitled for any other reliefs.

In the result, complaint is partly allowed. Opposite parties shall refund Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant within two months from the date of receipt of the order.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 17^th day of August 2009.

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

C.C. No. 78/2008

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - Sajeev. S

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of e-mail sent by 3^rd opposite party to complainant.

P2 - Copy of e-mail sent by 2^nd opposite party to complainant.

P3 - Copy of e-mail sent by complainant to 2^nd opposite party.

P4 - Copy of statement of account dated 09.04.2008.

P5 - Sanction letter dated 13.03.2008 issued by 1^st opposite

party to the complainant.

P6 - Copy of letter dated 08.04.2008 issued by the complainant

to the 2^nd opposite party.

P7 - Copy of passport of the complainant.

P8 - Copy of Reservation Confirmation.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT