In the Court of the Calcutta District Forum, Unit-I
CDF-1/Case no.67/2004
Mrs. Anita Agarwal,
Lake Tower Apartment,
87, Southern Avenue, Kolkata-29 and another ……. Complainant
vs.
The Tata Home Finance Ltd.,
3B, Park Plaza, 3rd Floor,
71, Park Street, Kolkata-16 and others …… Opposite parties
Present : Sri A.K. Das, President
, Member
Order no. 23 dt. 05/12/2007
Only issue involved in this consumer complaint is whether the complainants (1) Mrs. Anita Agarwal and (2) Mr. Manish Agarwal are entitled to refund of Rs.15500/- collected by o.p. Tata home Finance Ltd. along with compensation for deficiency in service on the part of o.p. and litigation cost.
The petitioner submitted application in a prescribed printed form (of o.p.) to o.p. to provide individual home loan to purchase a flat for them.
The o.p. gave financial sanction of Rs.1550000/- on 15.7.03 and requested to pay processing fees / administration fees Rs.15500/-. The complainant paid that amount by cheque no.956783 dt.17.7.03.
Thereafter complainant complied necessary requirement of o.p. regarding said loan. They also gave reply of o.p.s’ letter dt. 10.9.03 whereby they (o.p.) called upon to furnish some documents.
The complainant alleged that they made representations to disburse the loan amount but o.p. failed to disburse the loan on various pretext.
It is further alleged that the vendor of the said flat threatened to cancel the deal of selling their flat to the complainant as things were getting uncertain and under this circumstances he complainant approached other institution for housing loan and same was granted immediately and they purchased the flat on 16.10.03.
Now the complainant claimed refund of Rs.15500/- along with other relief.
The o.p. has contended that it is accepted by the petitioners in the application form that processing fees / administration fees are non refundable.
The complainant received the sanction letter on 20.9.03 whereby they (o.p.) asked the petitioner to produce the same documents but petitioners could not produce those documents for inspection by o.p.
One Manoj Beswal in case no.68/04 also applied to o.p. for loan of the same flat mentioned in this case (case no.67/04). Two separates cannot be allowed to purchase one flat. The parties in both cases could not show a physical portion of the flat of 3rd floor at premises no.87, Dr. Meghnad Saha Sarani for giving loan to the two separate applicant.
The petitioners by letter dt.12.9.03 informed the o.p. that they are not in a position to supply the document as required by o.p. and as such the legal and technical report became defective and loan was not disbursed.
The complainant in reply submitted that o.p. did not assign any reason for non-disbursement of loan which is deficiency in service on the part of o.p. They received letter of o.p. dt.20.9.03 which they ignored.
It is appearing from the record by letter dt.20.9.03 o.p. again demanded from the petitioners’ documents for disbursement of the loan which they have sanctioned but o.p. ignored that letter and thereafter they purchased flat on 16.10.03 without waiting further reply of the o.ps. Moreover, it is not appearing from the record the petitioners made representation to the o.ps. for disbursement of the loan considering their circumstances and the documents submitted by them vide letter dt.12.9.03. The present complaint has been filed as is appearing from the cause title by Anita Agarwal and Manish Agarwal but the complaint has been signed by only Anita Agarwal. It is not appearing Manish Agarwal has authorized Anita Agarwal to present the complaint before this forum. It is undisputed they submitted the loan application in the prescribed format of o.p. whereby they have knowledge about not refundable of process / administrative charges. Therefore, non disbursement of the sanctioned loan does not entitle them to get refund of the process fee / administrative fee from the o.p. Moreover, there was no deficiency on the part of the o.p. for non disbursement of the loan although they have sanctioned on the ground required documents are not produced by petitioners. In view of the fact, present consumer complaint has devoid of merit and the petitioners are not entitled to relief as prayed for. Accordingly, present consumer complaint is dismissed on contest without cost.
Let copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
