Complaint No.494 /2008

Date of Institution 04.08.2008

Date of Service 25.09.2008

Date of order: 11.11.2009
Sameer Gogia son of Shri Manohar Singh resident of House no.B-678/1, Prem Nagar, Shiv Mandir Road, Civil Lines, Ludhiana.
….Complainant.

Versus

1- M/s. India Bulls Housing Finance Limited, having its corporate office at India bulls house, 448-451, Udyog Vihal, Phase V, Gurgaon- 122001. Haryana, through its Managing director.

2- M/s India Bulls Housing Finance limited, Fortune Chambers, SCO.No.16-17 Ist Floor, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana, through its Incharge.

….Opposite parties.

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Quorum:

Sh. T.N. Vaidya, President.

Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Member.
Present: Sh. S.M.Gulati,Adv. for the complainant.

Sh. K.K.Bagai, Adv. for opposite parties.

O R D E R

T.N. VAIDYA, PRESIDENT:
Complainant in the present complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, allege indulging into unfair trade practice by the OPs, has claimed refund of Rs.25500/-, realised as loan processing charges and also claim compensation of Rs.4.50 lacs.

2. Case spelled in the complaint is that, complainant took business loan to the tune of Rs.1590001/- on 17.07.2004, repayable in 172 monthly installments of Rs.19200/- from M/s. G.E.Money Financial Services Limited, New Delhi. Complainant subsequently required further loan for the business purpose and happen to come in contact with Gurjit Singh, representative of OPs. OPs through Gurjit Singh assured to take over the outstanding loan from GE Money and they would grant desired finances to the complainant at very handsome rate of interest of 12% per annum. OPs at that time were intimated, that he would not take loan in case, the rate of interest is claimed morethan 12% per annum. On such assurances a sum of Rs.25500/- was paid to Gurjit Singh as loan processing charges. It was assured in case loan not provided with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, then loan processing charges shall be refunded. Thereafter, complainant remained in touch with Gurjit Singh, who subsequently revealed that OP1- M/s. India Bulls Housing Finance Limited, Gurgaon, was not agreeing to sanction the financial assistance to the complainant at the interest of 12% per annum. Hence, complainant expressed his desire for not having the assistance from OPs and requested Gurjit Singh to refund the loan processing fees taken from him, but in order to avoid the refund of loan processing fees, OPs played tricks and resorted to unfair trade practice. He was given telephonic calls to collect the first installment cheque ,without issuing any communication regarding taking over the existing loan of the complainant, which he had availed from G.E.Money. They did so to avoid the refund of processing charges. Complainant again conveyed his desire of not availing any financial assistance from OPs and requested him to refund his processing charges, but they illegally retained the same. Hence this complaint.

3. OPs contended that the complaint is not maintainable as loan application of the complainant was duly processed, complainant signed loan agreement to avail loan of Rs.2500000/- which was repayable in 192 equated monthly installements of Rs.33552/- each, the sanctioned letter, declaration cum undertaking were also signed by the complainant. Complainant agreed to mortgage his property, in view of taking the loan handed over, jamabandi dated 24.10.2006 and all the formalities were completed. Thereafter, complainant suddenly decided not to avail the loan facility. He has now filed this complaint on false and frivolous ground. He is not entitled to get the refund of processing fee. It is denied that Gurjit Singh had ever assured complainant to get the loan at the rate of interest of 12% per annum. He has filed the complaint with malafide intention. Complainant himself abstained to obtain the loan which was processed. Thus, they have not resorted to any unfair trade practice and the complaint deserves dismissal.

4. Both the parties adduced in support of their claims and stood heard through their respective counsels.

5. According to Sh.S.M.Gulati,ld. counsel for the complainant, complainant had agreed to take loan from OPs at the rate of 12% per annum which was agreed by Gurjit Singh, representative of OPs, who had assured that in case the complainant is not provided with loan on an interest at the rate of 12% per annum then the loan processing charges will be refunded to him and further he argued that OPs had taken signatures of the complainant on the blank papers and documents for processing the loan. Also argued that his loan application was never processed. They never intimated GE Money about the taking over their loan, therefore they manipulated documents subsequently.

6. On the otherhand, Mr.K.K.Bagai ld.counsel for the OPs contested the avernments and submissions of the complainant to be wrong. He says representative of the bank never agreed to advance loan at the rate of 12% per annum, rather whenever loan was settled, entered into an agreement between the parties. The loan application was processed, but the applicant himself after sanction of the loan refused to take the same. Consequently, complainant after processing of his loan application would not be entitled to get the processing fee refund. He says all documents were signed by the complainant after understanding their nature admitting them to be correct.

7. We have gone through the evidence on record. Complainant in this case have given approval qua obtaining business loan from the GE money. But qua loan to be taken from the OPs, placed no documentary evidence on the record, except affidavit Ex.CW1/A of Sameer Gogia, complainant. The only documents received from OPs and produced by him are, copies of letter Ex.C1, receipt Ex.C2 for Rs.25500/- paid as processing fees, statement of accounts Ex.C3 and other documents E.mails Ex.C4 to Ex.C6 requiring to refund the processing fees.

8. Avernments of the complainant qua agreement with Gurjit Singh to advance loan with interest, at the rate of 12% per annum, runs contra to the documents on the record. Suffice to say that assertions would not replace or effect contents of written agreements.

9. Ex.R2 and Ex.R3 loan application moved by the complainant to the OPs. This made complainant to enter into an agreement Ex.R4 with the OPs, all pages of agreement are signed by all the complainant and others. Under ‘schedule B’ of this agreement had agreed to floating loan at the rate of 13.25% per annum with adjustable rate of interest IHFLPLR+/- 1.25% p.a + 14.5% p.a. The schedule appended with agreement Ex.R4 also contains signatures of the complainant and others. This rate of interest mentioned in the loan agreement refutes claim that he was assured to advance loan at the rate of 12% per annum and on failure to pay the same, OPs had disagreed to refund the processing charges.

10. The matter of process ends here. As OPs after agreement Ex.R4 issued loan sanction letter Ex.R5, sanctioning loan of Rs.2500000/- with tenure of 16 years to the complainant. The sanction letter Ex.R5 and declaration Ex.R6 appended therewith are also signed by the complainant and others. At that time they had given undertaking, declaration duly attested by the notary on 24.10.2006. Copy of jamabandi qua their property Ex.R7 is also relied in proof by OPs, to prove that they had agreed to mortgage their property for taking the said loan.

11. All these facts goes to show that loan application was processed and sanction was made, but the complainant backed out to take the said loan. Avernments of the complainant that OPs had agreed to refund processing fee in case loan did not carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum being contrary to documents, evidence, is not proved at all. On the other hand, the complaint is falisfied from the documents. In these circumstances, Fora reaches at a conclusion that it was the complainant, who himself opted not to take the loan after it was processed and sanctioned by the OPs. Therefore, in our view they would not be liable to pay the same, as OPs had never agreed for its refund.

12. Consequently, finding no merits, the complaint is dismissed. Copy of order be made available to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to record room.