IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 21st day of November, 2019
Filed on 01-03-2016
Present
1. Sri.E.M. Muhammed Ibrahim,B.A,LLM (President)
2. Smt. Sholy P.R, B.A.L,LLB (Member)
3. Smt.C.K.Lekhamma, B.A, LLB (Member)
In
CC/No.64/2016
between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri. Sunil Kumar 1. The Manager
S/o M.Ramachandran Magma Financial Corporation Ltd
Kakkanad house Jan Tower, Oppo.KSEB Power
Thottappally Muri House, Vyttila, Ernakulam-682019
Thottappally P.O.
Purakkad Village 2. Sri.Ajith
(By Adv.Hameed Manthalasseril) Credit Manager
Magma Financial Corporation Ltd
Jan Tower, Oppo.KSEB Power
House, Vyttila, Ernakulam-682019
3. Sri.Stanly
Authorized Officer
Magma Financial Corporation Ltd
Jan Tower, Oppo.KSEB Power
House, Vyttila, Ernakulam-682019
4. Sri.Suneesh
Direct Selling
Magma Financial Corporation Ltd
Jan Tower, Oppo.KSEB Power
House, Vyttila, Ernakulam-682019
(By Adv.Babu Joseph for opposite
parties No.1 to 4)
O R D E R
SMT.SHOLY P.R (MEMBER)
The case of the complainant in short is as follows:-
The 4th opposite party, who is the direct selling Associates of the Magma Financial Corporation Ltd, approached the complaint and informed regarding loan facilities. The 4th opposite party had given full assurance about the sanction of loan after receiving the landed property of the complainant as security. As per the direction of the 4th opposite party the complainant reached at 6.40 PM on 22.2.2015 at Anugraha Restaurant, Vyttila. At that time the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties met the complainant along with 4th opposite party and received the loan application with property documents for the purpose of sanctioning the loan. The opposite parties directed the complainant to deposit an amount of Rs.5618/- in the account of 1st opposite party towards preliminary expenses of the loan. Accordingly the complainant executed and issued a cheque for Rs.5,618/- in favour of the 1st opposite party. But the opposite parties had not given any loan as per the assurance made by them. The complainant issued legal notice demanding to give loan amount or to return the amount which was received by the opposite parties in connection with the sanctioning of loan. The opposite parties had not given any reply to the said notice and they were also not ready to repay the amount obtained from the complainant along with compensation as demanded in the legal notice. There deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. Hence the complaint.
The complainant and opposite parties 1 to 3 appeared through counsels. Though the notice issued from this Forum has been served 4th opposite party was not present and called absent and set exparte.
2. Version filed by the opposite parties 1 to 3 in short are as follows:-
The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The 1st opposite party nor the 4th opposite party never approached the complainant for the purpose of giving loan. Instead the complainant approached the office of the 1st opposite party and requested for a loan facility. The opposite party thereafter filled up the application form and the executives of the opposite party convinced him of the formalities which has to be complied while applying for loan. The complainant and co-obligent duly prepared, signed and handed over the same to the opposite party. It was specifically made known to the complainant that he has to pay the commitment fee/ processing fee of Rs.5,618/- by way of cheque in favour of the 1st opposite party along with the application and the said fee is non-refundable even if the loan is sanctioned or not. The complainant is well aware of the said fact and agreed that terms at the time of filing application. There after the loan was not sanctioned due to want of criteria of opposite parties and that fact was intimated to the complainant vide letter dated 8-6-2015. Aggrieved by the no-sanctioning of the loan, the complainant preferred this frivolous complaint as an experimental case. The opposite parties never made the complainant to believe that the loan would be sanctioned. The complainant signed the loan application agreeing the terms and conditions and therefore he is not legally entitled to pay the commitment fee. The complainant never approached the opposite party to refund the commitment fee. Opposite party never played any unfair trade practice and there is no deficiency in service and no mental agony caused to the complainant. This complaint is belated and there is no cause of action against the opposite parties and this complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs of the opposite parties.
In view of the above pleadings the points arose for consideration are :-
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party 1 to 4 in not sanctioning the loan applied for by the complainant.
2. Whether complainant is entitled to get the amount deposited along with the loan application from the opposite parties?
3. Reliefs & costs ?
Complainant examined as PW1, and got marked Exts. A1 to A6. On the side of the opposite parties RW1 and RW2 were examined and marked. Ext.B1, heard both sides.
Point No.1 and 2
There is no dispute with regard to the application for loan submitted by the complainant to the opposite parties. According to the complainant for scrutinizing the loan application he has submitted the documents of landed property and remitted the amount of Rs.5,618/- to the opposite parties by believing that loan should be sanctioned as told by the opposite parties at the time of meeting convened by them. But the opposite parties have not taken any steps to sanction the loan after receiving the Ext.A2 loan application.
The opposite parties would content that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as the complainant has availed no service from the opposite parties. It is also submitted that Ext.A2 shows that the amount of Rs.5,618/- is non-refundable irrespective of the outcome of loan application which is mentioned in page 3 of Ext.A2 and complainant who is a degree holder has read the entire loan application (Ext.A2) and signed the same with his wife as co-applicant. According to the opposite parties the complainant has not produced any document to show that he is solvent enough to avail a loan of 15 lakhs from the opposite parties.
Admittedly the charges received by the opposite party along with the duly filled up application form is commitment charge and in cross-examination RW1 has stated that the same is considered as the loan cancellation charge which is not believable in the circumstance of this case. It is also highly fair to receive the cancellation charge on the date of presentation of the loan application itself. It is also pertinent to note that there is no mention of the criteria for sanctioning of the loan anywhere in Ext.B1 nor the terms and conditions of the loan have been intimated to the complainant. Admittedly no further proceedings were taken by the opposite parties for sanctioning the loan applied by the complainant. Even though the opposite parties received the legal notice (Ext.A6) regarding the grievance of the complainant, no reply was given by them challenging the averments in the notice. So it is a clear case of deficiency in service and it is evident that the opposite parties have committed unfair trade practice also.
On evaluating the entire facts and circumstances available on record we have no hesitation to hold that the opposite parties have committed unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and hence they are bound to return the amount collected from the complainant as processing fee, compensation and costs. Points answered accordingly.
Point No.3
In the result the complaint stands allowed directing the opposite parties to return the amount of Rs.5618/- which was received from the complainant as loan processing fee along with interest at the rate of 9 % per annum from 20.03.2015 till realization and also directed to pay Rs.3000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as cost of the proceedings within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of this order failing which the complainant is entitled to recover Rs.8618/- with interest at 12% interest from the date of complaint till realization along with costs Rs.2,000/- from the opposite parties and from their assets.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 21st day of November, 2019.
Sd/-Smt. Sholy P.R (Member) :
Sd/-Sri.E.M. Muhammed Ibrahim (President) :
Sd/-Smt.C.K.Lekhamma (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Sunil Kumar (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Statement of account
Ext.A2 - Original loan application
Ext.A3 - Postal Receipts (4 Nos.)
Ext.A4 - Acknowledgment Cards (3 Nos.)
Ext.A5 - Returned legal notice of counter petitioners No.4
Ext.A6 - Copy of legal notice
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Sumesh T.S (Witness)
RW2 - Ajith Kumar S.P (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Copy of letter dated 08.06.2015
// True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Senior Superintendent
Typed by:- Sa/-
Compared by:-
