Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/155/2023

ASHOK KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE MANAGER AXIS BANK MANIMAJRA - Opp.Party(s)

Complainant(in Prsn)

20 Feb 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	:	155 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	06.07.2023
Date of Decision	:	20.02.2024

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sh. Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Dalbir Singh, Village - Mohla, District- Hisar (Haryana)-125042.

…..Appellant/Complainant.

Versus

1]      The Manager, Axis Bank, Branch Manimajra, Chandigarh – 160101.

2]      Sandeep Kumar S/o Shri Kanshi Ram, Property Dealer, #139/16, Model Town, Hansi (Hisar), Haryana -125033.

3]      Ninhiya Devi wife Shri Ramdhari, #590/12, Krishna Colony, Hansi (Hisar)-125033.

...Respondent/Opposite Party.

 

BEFORE:   JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY :-  

Sh. Ashok Kumar, appellant in person.

Sh. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Names of respondents No.2 & 3 deleted vide order dated 21.07.2023.

 

PER  RAJESH  K. ARYA, MEMBER

 

                    This appeal has been filed by the complainant Sh. Ashok Kumar (appellant herein) against dismissal of his consumer complaint No.522 of 2022 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘District Commission), vide order dated 12.06.2023 (wrongly mentioned as 12.06.2022 in the first page of the impugned order). However, the complaint against opposite parties No.2 & 3 (respondents No.2 and 3 herein) was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 21.9.2022.

2]                The brief facts as narrated in the impugned order passed by the District Commission are as under:-

“1.     Briefly stated  the complainant approached OP No.1 for availing housing loan on 06.5.2021, and submitted the required documents. They charged Rs.2950/- as processing fee. The complainant was asked to file after the second wave of Corona pandemic and also told that this is a work of 15 days only and will be done before 05.7.2021 as the deadline for land registration was 05.7.2021. Since the deadline of registration was coming near so the complainant contacted Mr. Shubham who told that there is some objection in the file and asked to send proof of local address I sent the necessary proofs to remove this objection on the same day itself. It is alleged that despite repeated request and supply of documents as asked for, the OPs lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other. Ultimately the OPs intimated the complainant that they will not be able to give loan for purchase of land due to non-identification of the same and as such the dream of buying a residential land of complainant got shattered. It is alleged that due to the aforesaid act of OPs the earnest money given by complainant was forfeited although written assurance has been given by respondent-2 for refund but neither refund nor any affirmative reply is being given. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed.

2.      The Opposite Parties NO.1 in its reply stated that financial sanction of loan was done on 12.7.2021  on the basis of financial credential of the complainant however, the complainant had to submit the property documents and other documents for disbursal of the loan in period of 180 days of the said sanction and after submission of documents the bank had to do the legal and technical verification of the property. On finding the clear legal and technical verification the loan was to be disbursed to the complainant but the land for which loan was applied was not identifiable at the site and do not match the legal and technical requirement for disbursal of loan.  It is clearly mentioned in clause 1 of the loan sanction letter that the loan sanction is subject to the clear legal and technical verification of the property. Since the land was not identifiable so the OP bank was unable to get the legal and technical clearance of the complainant property and in compliance of condition No.1 of the sanction letter the loan of the complainant was not disbursed. It is averred that there is no deficiency on the part of the answering OP.  All other allegations made in the complaint has been denied being wrong.”

3]                The District Commission dismissed the complaint of the appellant by observing in Para 8, inter-alia, “……In the instant case, the complainant has failed to rebut by way of any concrete documentary evidence that the plea of the OP  No.1 that loan could not be released due to non identification of the land against which loan was to be released. Moreover, non-identification of land  is a fault on the part of OPs No. 2&3 with whom the deal of the land was done by the complainant and not the OP No.1 bank and interestingly the complainant withdrawn the complaint against them. Hence, we cannot hold liable to OP No.1 for the act and omission of the OPs No.2&3 against whom the complainant has withdrawn the complainant. Moreover,  any banking/financial institution cannot be forced to release the loan amount against the rules and regulations………”

4]                The appellant in his appeal has stated that rules and regulations have been ignored by the respondent – Bank, who has not taken any effective/practical steps towards protecting the rights of consumers and ensuring the quality of loans given and therefore, this is a case of lack of quality of service and adoption of unregulated business system for which it is necessary to punish the concerned as per the rules. It has further been stated that the decision rendered by the District Commission vide the impugned order has violated the consumer's rights of the appellant because the District Commission has ignored that the respondent Bank had repeatedly promised to give the loan on time but it had not complied with its promises. It has further been stated that the respondent Bank had realized its mistake, in view of which, during the hearing on 21.09.2022, it had asked the appellant to refund the amount of Rs.2,950/-charged as processing fee. It has further been stated that this important fact has been ignored by the District Commission while passing the impugned order. It has further been stated that on releasing its mistake, the respondent Bank removed its employee, namely, Sh. Shubham Mishra from the job by issuing a show cause notice letter but the loss suffered by the appellant has not been compensated, which fact has totally been ignored by the District Commission. It has further been stated that according to the Consumer Protection Act, the consumer has the right to be informed about the terms and conditions, quality, security, chargeable fees and time limit etc. applicable to the purchase of service/goods, whereas no such evidence was provided by the respondent Bank. It has further been stated that the respondent bank did not undertake any such process even till the date of grant of loan to the appellant till 26.07.2021, which the District Commission also ignored in its decision. It has further been stated that the terms and conditions were never informed to the appellant in time, which were given in the form of a photocopy on 28.07.2021 after the matter got worse. It has further been stated that no legal point has been discussed in the decision rendered by the District Commission and the case laws presented by the appellant have been ignored by the District Commission. It has further been stated that according to the decision of the District Commission, it has been confirmed that the consumer is not at fault, yet the said decision has been given in violation of various rights of the consumer like the right to compensation. It has further been stated that the respondent Bank has not presented any evidence/document in view of which it could be said that any step has been taken by the respondent Bank towards informing the customer – appellant in writing reasons for non-disbursal of loan to him. It has further been stated that the respondent did nothing except withdrawing Rs.2,950/- from the bank account of the appellant towards processing fee and not conveying refusal of disbursal, which is evidence of sheer unregulated business and faulty functioning.

5]                It has further been stated that the respondent Bank has not even presented any such evidence/document, in view of which, it could be said that any document related to the identification of the land has been demanded from the appellant by the respondent Bank before the 26.07.2021. It has further been stated that quoting the terms and conditions of the approval letter dated 12.07.2021 to conceal one’s own fault and negligence later on is merely a violation of the general policies of the business system under the Consumer Protection Act. It has further been stated that if there were any such conditions, the same should have been informed in advance by the respondent – Bank to the appellant.

6]                It has further been stated that neither the consignor signed the consignment note, admitting the terms and conditions therein nor he was read over and explained the same and therefore, the terms and conditions Annexure C-1 being unilateral in nature were not binding on the appellant. It has further been stated that when the appellant had not received the conditions, then the question applicability thereof does not arise. Lastly, the appellant has prayed that the impugned order of the District Commission be set aside and the relief claimed in the consumer complaint be awarded.

7]                On the other hand, Counsel for the respondent – Axis Bank has stated that the sanction letter dated 12.07.2021 was only a financial sanction, which was issued on the basis of the appellant financial credentials only and the said sanction was valid for 180 days only. He has further stated that the appellant had to submit the property documents and other documents for disbursal of the said loan within a period of 180 days of the said sanction and after it was only thereafter, the respondent – Bank had to do the legal and technical verification of the property. He has further stated that it was only after finding clear legal and technical verification that the said loan was to be disbursed to the appellant. He has further stated that the property disclosed by the appellant for availing the loan was not identifiable at the site and did not match the legal and technical requirement for disbursal of loan, which was required as per Clause 1 of the loan sanction letter. He has further stated that the District Commission rightly dismissed the complaint on facts. He has prayed that the appeal be also dismissed being meritless.

8]                It may be stated here that since complaint bearing No.522 of 2022 had already been dismissed as withdrawn qua Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 (respondents No.2 & 3 herein) vide order dated 21.09.2022, therefore, on 21.07.2023, the appellant submitted before this Commission that the names of respondents No.2 & 3 i.e. Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 be deleted from the array of the parties in the appeal also. Accordingly, their names were ordered to be deleted by this Commission vide order dated 21.07.2023.

9]                After hearing the appellant and the Counsel for the respondent and going through the material available on record very carefully, we are of the view that the District Commission has failed to appreciate the facts and documentary evidence on record and wrongly dismissed the complaint of the appellant, which deserves acceptance for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. From bare perusal of POWER HOME SANCTION LETTER dated 12.07.2021 transpires that the respondent Bank approved the facility – POWER OF VANILLA BRE for Rs.15 Lakhs to the appellant for the purpose of resale of ready builtup at Floating rate linked to Repo Rate and the equated monthly installment (EMI) was fixed at Rs.11,629/-. The said sanction letter was valid for 180 days. It may be stated here that during the course of arguments before us, the appellant placed on record copy of registered Sale Deed dated 29.11.2021 vide which Smt. Naniha @ Naniha Devi W/o Ramdhari S/o Sudhamal R/o Krishna Colony, Jind Road, Hansi, Tehsil Hansi, Distt. Hisar has sold the property to Sh. Ravi Shankar Goyal  S/o Roshan Lal S/o Baru Ram R/o Mohalla Ramayan, Hansi, Tehsil Hansi, Distt. Hisar. The appellant submitted that documents qua this property to the respondent-Bank, on the basis of which, loan sanction letter was issued to him and he was also charged processing fee of Rs.2,950/-, which was debited from his account.

10]              Perusal of record shows that at one point of time on 21.09.2022, for the purpose of settlement, the respondent – Bank offered to refund the said amount of Rs.2,950/- before the District Commission, which the appellant did not accept. It is no doubt true that as per Clause 1 of the sanction letter, the sanction being a financial sanction was subject to clear legal and technical reports by Bank’s empanelled lawyer and valuator in regard to the property being purchased/mortgaged and should be approved by competent authority. As such, the onus to prove that the property disclosed by the appellant for availing the loan was not identifiable at the site and did not match the legal and technical requirement for disbursal of loan was on the respondent-Bank. Nowhere in its reply, the respondent – Bank has submitted as to which property was disclosed by the appellant and how and when the said verification of the said property was done. Nothing has been placed on record to corroborate its stand by the respondent Bank. On directions issued by this Commission to the respondent – Bank to produce the entire original loan application, sanction letter and rejection alongwith all other documents attached therewith, the respondent-Bank on 30.01.2024 filed affidavit of Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Authorized Signatory of AXIS Bank Limited, dated 29.01.2024, wherein it has been testified that as per the Axis Bank document destruction process, any rejected/declined/ cancelled/SUD/unsanctioned files will be stored with Bank vendor for a period of 210 days only and as per the Bank destruction policy for rejection cases, the original file of the appellant has already been disposed off in the Bank record and hence, the Bank is not able to produce the original record of the appellant file. No such Bank destruction policy has been placed on record specifying the aforesaid period of 210 days only for keeping such record. It is very astonishing that why the respondent – Bank was in so much hurry to destroy the original record of loan file of the appellant, which creates doubt that something was fishy with the respondent-Bank in following the due course of verification.

11]              Not only this, in the said affidavit, no date of such scraping of the original record of the appellant has been mentioned. It is a digital era and each and every document is scanned and fed in the computer systems by the Financial Institutions/Banks apart from maintaining the documentary record but nothing of such kind has been brought on record by the respondent Bank. The respondent – Bank took the appellant by surprise by giving vague reply that the property disclosed by him was not identifiable at the site and did not match the legal and technical requirement for disbursal of loan. When it was the registered property, of which there was registered sale deed, which the appellant had disclosed for verification, then how it could not be identified at the site or did not match the legal and technical requirement for disbursal of loan.

12]              In our considered view, the respondent – Bank did not do anything but kept on lingering the matter on one pretext or the other. The processing fee was charged from the appellant, loan was sanctioned but he was kept in dark with regard to the disbursal of the loan amount and the verification of the property. There is no document/letter produced by respondent Bank by which refusal of disbursal of loan was ever communicated in writing to the appellant complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service and which also resulted in non-finalizing of the property deal of the appellant. Therefore, on account of this deficiency in rendering service, mental agony and harassment, the appellant suffered loss for no fault of his, for which, the respondent – Bank is liable to compensate him. The impugned order is, therefore, is liable to be set aside being not sustainable in the eyes of law. 

13]              For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted against the respondent (Opposite Party – Axis Bank) and the impugned order is set aside qua it. The respondent/opposite party- Axis Bank is directed as under:-

(i)       to refund an amount of ₹2,950/- to the appellant/complainant, which it deducted as processing fee, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount of ₹2,950/-  shall carry interest @9% per annum (simple) from the date of filing the complaint till actual realization.

(ii)      to pay an amount of ₹25,000/- as lump-sum compensation for mental agony & harassment, deficiency in rendering service and litigation costs, to the appellant/complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount of ₹25,000/- shall carry interest @9% per annum (simple) from the date of filing the complaint till actual realization.

14]              Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

15]              File be consigned to the Record Room after completion.

Pronounced.

20.02.2024.

(RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

(RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

Ad