The Sales Manager ACL and SAL V/S H.g. Krishnamurthy - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

CC/08/1657

H.g. Krishnamurthy - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Sales Manager ACL and SAL - Opp.Party(s)

GVG

18 Sep 2008

ORDER

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSLAL FORUM, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE.
Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cauvery Bhavan, 8th Floor, BWSSB Bldg., K. G. Rd., Bangalore-09.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/1657

H.g. Krishnamurthy						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The Sales Manager ACL and SAL						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED: 28.07.2008 18th SEPTEMBER 2008 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SRI. SYED USMAN RAZVI MEMBER SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 1657/2008 COMPLAINANT H.G. Krishnamurthy, S/o. Late. H.R. Gundu Rao, Major, H.R. Gundu Rao Complex, Devanoor Road, Raghavendranagar, Tumkur Town. Advocate (C.V. Giddappa) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTY The Sales Manager, (ACL & SAL) Works Station No. 63, ICICI Bank Tower, Commercial Road, Opp. Mayohall, Bangalore 560 025. Advocate (V. Suresh) O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant to direct the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay Rs.5,000/- which was given for processing loan and pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant with a fond hope of construction of a house approached the OP.1 for sanction of the loan. To process the said loan application OP.1 demanded the complainant to pay Rs.5,000/-, complainant paid the same on 22.12.2006. Thereafter somehow OP.1 neither sanctioned the loan nor intimated the complainant what had happened to his loan application, though complainant made repeated requests and demands frequently. Ultimately he got issued the legal notice on 27.11.2007. Again there was no response. The hostile attitude of the OP is made him to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. For no fault of his, he was made to move from pillar to post. Thus complainant felt the deficiency in service. Without sanctioning the loan evenafter receipt of Rs.5,000/- processing fee and keeping the same without intimating the result of the loan application has caused him harassment and monetary loss. Under such circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. Though at earlier stage complaint is filed against OP.2 later on he got him deleted. On appearance, OP.1 filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP.1 it is their sole discretion to sanction or not to sanction the loan. After receipt of the loan application from the complainant they did visit the spot and verified whether the complainant has got a marketable title to the property wherein he is proposed to construct the building. On their thorough investigation it was revealed that the construction itself is against to the approved plan, there is no sanction and complainant did not possess the marketable title with respect to the property in question. That is why OP.1 rightly rejected the claim of the complainant with regard to sanction of loan. That act of OP.1 cannot be termed as deficiency in service. Complainant was informed about the rejection of his loan application. There is a condition in the loan application itself that the amount paid for processing or sanctioning the loan is not refundable. That is the reason why OP.1 did not consider the claim of the complainant for the refund. The other allegations are baseless. The complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP.1 prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP.1 has also filed the affidavit evidence. Then the arguments were heard. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Affirmative Point No.2:- Affirmative in part Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant has sought for sanction of loan from OP.1 for the construction of his house. In that regard in order to process the said loan application OP.1 intimated the complainant to pay Rs.5,000/- as process fee. Complainant paid the same under D.D. dated 22.12.2006. Now it is the grievance of the complainant that evenafter the receipt of the said D.D. OP.1 failed to sanction the loan and intimate him what has happened to his loan application inspite of his repeated requests and demands. Thereby he caused the legal notice to the OP on 27.11.2007. The copy of the legal notice is produced, which is duly served on the OP.1. There was no response to the said notice. 7. The evidence of the complainant finds full corroboration with the contents of the undisputed documents. It appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard the sworn testimony of the complainant. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainant, the defence set out by the OP is that they made spot inspection and on verification they came to know that construction of the said building is not in accordance with the approved plan and there is no actual sanction and that complainant did not possess the marketable title to the property, wherein he intended to construct the house. Hence they rejected the said loan and intimated the complainant. When OP rejected the said loan, on which date and when they intimated the complainant is not known. The bald and vague defence set out by the OP will not come to their assistance. The non-production of the document about the intimation sent to the complainant with regard to the rejection of the loan application, in our view amounts to deficiency in service. 8. OP encashed the said D.D. of Rs.5,000/- for processing a loan application which was given to them in the month of December 2006. But right up to November 2007 they did not intimate the complainant about the tale of his loan, that is why complainant caused the legal notice, for that legal notice also there is no response. When we take into consideration all these hostile acts and deeds of the OP, in our view they definitely amounts to deficiency in service. Though OP collected the necessary processing charges of Rs.5,000/- with regard to sanction of the loan for courtesy sake atleast it would have intimated the complainant the result of his loan application. But no such steps are taken. 9. Here we find the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. For no fault of his, complainant is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Of course we do not dispute the fact that it is the discretion of the OP to sanction or not to sanction of the loan and that cannot be questioned, it depends on various factors. Non intimation of rejection of loan in time after collecting the service charges definitely amounts to deficiency in service. 10. Of course the claim of compensation of Rs.50,000/- and refund of Rs.5,000/- processing fee, in our view is on higher side. When OP has processed the loan application the complainant is not entitled for the refund of the same. With regard to mental agony suffered by the complainant, in our view the justice will be met by directing the OP to pay a compensation of Rs.2,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/-. With these reasons we answer point nos.1 and 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.2,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 18th day of September 2008.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.

COMPLAINT FILED: 28.07.2008 18th SEPTEMBER 2008 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SRI. SYED USMAN RAZVI MEMBER SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 1657/2008 COMPLAINANT H.G. Krishnamurthy, S/o. Late. H.R. Gundu Rao, Major, H.R. Gundu Rao Complex, Devanoor Road, Raghavendranagar, Tumkur Town. Advocate (C.V. Giddappa) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTY The Sales Manager, (ACL & SAL) Works Station No. 63, ICICI Bank Tower, Commercial Road, Opp. Mayohall, Bangalore 560 025. Advocate (V. Suresh) O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant to direct the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay Rs.5,000/- which was given for processing loan and pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant with a fond hope of construction of a house approached the OP.1 for sanction of the loan. To process the said loan application OP.1 demanded the complainant to pay Rs.5,000/-, complainant paid the same on 22.12.2006. Thereafter somehow OP.1 neither sanctioned the loan nor intimated the complainant what had happened to his loan application, though complainant made repeated requests and demands frequently. Ultimately he got issued the legal notice on 27.11.2007. Again there was no response. The hostile attitude of the OP is made him to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. For no fault of his, he was made to move from pillar to post. Thus complainant felt the deficiency in service. Without sanctioning the loan evenafter receipt of Rs.5,000/- processing fee and keeping the same without intimating the result of the loan application has caused him harassment and monetary loss. Under such circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. Though at earlier stage complaint is filed against OP.2 later on he got him deleted. On appearance, OP.1 filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP.1 it is their sole discretion to sanction or not to sanction the loan. After receipt of the loan application from the complainant they did visit the spot and verified whether the complainant has got a marketable title to the property wherein he is proposed to construct the building. On their thorough investigation it was revealed that the construction itself is against to the approved plan, there is no sanction and complainant did not possess the marketable title with respect to the property in question. That is why OP.1 rightly rejected the claim of the complainant with regard to sanction of loan. That act of OP.1 cannot be termed as deficiency in service. Complainant was informed about the rejection of his loan application. There is a condition in the loan application itself that the amount paid for processing or sanctioning the loan is not refundable. That is the reason why OP.1 did not consider the claim of the complainant for the refund. The other allegations are baseless. The complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP.1 prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP.1 has also filed the affidavit evidence. Then the arguments were heard. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Affirmative Point No.2:- Affirmative in part Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant has sought for sanction of loan from OP.1 for the construction of his house. In that regard in order to process the said loan application OP.1 intimated the complainant to pay Rs.5,000/- as process fee. Complainant paid the same under D.D. dated 22.12.2006. Now it is the grievance of the complainant that evenafter the receipt of the said D.D. OP.1 failed to sanction the loan and intimate him what has happened to his loan application inspite of his repeated requests and demands. Thereby he caused the legal notice to the OP on 27.11.2007. The copy of the legal notice is produced, which is duly served on the OP.1. There was no response to the said notice. 7. The evidence of the complainant finds full corroboration with the contents of the undisputed documents. It appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard the sworn testimony of the complainant. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainant, the defence set out by the OP is that they made spot inspection and on verification they came to know that construction of the said building is not in accordance with the approved plan and there is no actual sanction and that complainant did not possess the marketable title to the property, wherein he intended to construct the house. Hence they rejected the said loan and intimated the complainant. When OP rejected the said loan, on which date and when they intimated the complainant is not known. The bald and vague defence set out by the OP will not come to their assistance. The non-production of the document about the intimation sent to the complainant with regard to the rejection of the loan application, in our view amounts to deficiency in service. 8. OP encashed the said D.D. of Rs.5,000/- for processing a loan application which was given to them in the month of December 2006. But right up to November 2007 they did not intimate the complainant about the tale of his loan, that is why complainant caused the legal notice, for that legal notice also there is no response. When we take into consideration all these hostile acts and deeds of the OP, in our view they definitely amounts to deficiency in service. Though OP collected the necessary processing charges of Rs.5,000/- with regard to sanction of the loan for courtesy sake atleast it would have intimated the complainant the result of his loan application. But no such steps are taken. 9. Here we find the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. For no fault of his, complainant is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Of course we do not dispute the fact that it is the discretion of the OP to sanction or not to sanction of the loan and that cannot be questioned, it depends on various factors. Non intimation of rejection of loan in time after collecting the service charges definitely amounts to deficiency in service. 10. Of course the claim of compensation of Rs.50,000/- and refund of Rs.5,000/- processing fee, in our view is on higher side. When OP has processed the loan application the complainant is not entitled for the refund of the same. With regard to mental agony suffered by the complainant, in our view the justice will be met by directing the OP to pay a compensation of Rs.2,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/-. With these reasons we answer point nos.1 and 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.2,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 18th day of September 2008.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.