Appeal case No.294/2009

Date of institution:27.5.2009

Date of decision :27.11.2009



LIC Housing Finance Ltd.,SCO No.2445-46, Sector-22-C, Chandigarh. ….…Appellant

V E R S U S

1. Rajeev Rastogi S/o Sh.R.S.Rastogi

2. Mrs.Ranjana Rastogi W/o Sh.Rajeev Rastogi, both residents of House No.632, Sector-41-A, Chandigarh.

3. Sh.Satish Kumar Saini agent optimum agencies, SCO No.366, Sector 44-D, Chandigarh.

.…Respondents



Appeal U/s 15 of Consumer Protection Act,1986 against

order dated 23.4.2009 passed by Consumer Disputes

Redressal Forum-I, U.T.Chandigarh.



Present: Sh. O.P.Narang,advocate for the appellant.

Ms. Anchal Thakur,advocate for respondents No.1 &2.



BEFORE : Hon’ble Mr.Justice Pritam Pal, President

Maj.Gen.S.P.Kapoor(Retd), Member





JUDGMENT

27.11.2009



Justice Pritam Pal, President





1. This appeal by LIC Housing Finance Ltd.- one of the opposite parties is directed against the order dated 23.4.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum-I, U.T.Chandigarh whereby his complaint bearing NO.1083 of 2008 was allowed in the following terms ;

“In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present case succeeds. The same is accordingly allowed. The OP NO.1 is directed to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainants within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order, failing which the same alongwith litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- would be paid with interest @ 12% p.a. since filing the present complaint i.e. 12.9.2009, till the payment is actually made to the complainants. ”

The parties in this judgment hereinafter shall be referred to as per their ranking before the District Forum.

2. Put shortly the facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainants applied for a housing loan of Rs.5 lacs through OP-2 for construction of a house at Barotiwala (Himachal Pradesh) and paid him Rs.7,200/- to meet with the expenses. OP-2 also received all the original title deed documents and two cheques duly signed by complainant No.1 in favour of LIC Housing Finance Ltd. Thereafter the complainants were informed by OP-2 that a loan of Rs.5 lacs had been sanctioned on 26.11.2007 but no cheque or draft in respect of the said loan was handed over to the complainants. Upon enquiry, the concerned official of OP-1 told them that their loan file/papers had not been forwarded by OP-2 and the period of validity of loan had lapsed. When the complainants contacted OP-2, he demanded certain documents which were handed over to him. The complainants were again told by OP-2 that their loan had been sanctioned on 7.6.2008 but they did not receive any cheque/draft. However, thereafter OP-2 again demanded jamabandies of the last 13 years from the complainants. The complainants then got issued a legal notice dated 29.8.2008 calling upon OPs to do the needful but to no avail. Hence, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before the District Consumer Forum.

3.. On the other hand, the case of OP NO.1 before the District Forum was that the complainants did not submit the required papers relating to the Society and original documents/title deeds pertaining to the plot in question and as such OP NO.1 could not get the project approval report of the society and the title verification report of the property in question required to be mortgaged which was a necessary formality. It was admitted that on the basis of initial papers, loan of Rs.5 lacs was sanctioned to the complainants but they did not complete the requisite formalities required for disbursement of the loan amount. It was stated that the complainants deposited only Rs.1,122/- whereas they were required to deposit Rs.5,618/- as 1% upfront fee and Service tax. It was further pleaded that due to non-completion of documents on the part of complainant the previous sanction of the loan had lapsed which was revalidated but even then they did not submit the requisite papers and as such title deed could not be got verified.

4.. The case of OP-2 before the District Forum was that the complainants were not consumers and that there was no privity of contract between the complainants and him and he never received a single rupee from the complainants. The delay in disbursement of the loan had no relationship with the conduct of OP-2. It was pleaded that there was no fault on the part of OP-2 for the sanction/re-sanction/disbursal of the housing loan by OP-1 to the complainants and the delay, if any, was only due to lack of fulfillment of necessary documentation on the part of complainants.

5. The learned District Consumer Forum after going through the file and hearing the learned counsel for the parties allowed the complaint as indicated in the opening part of this judgment. This is how feeling aggrieved against the said order, OP No.1 has come up in this appeal.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file. The learned counsel for appellant/OP contended that no disbursement of loan could be made for want of necessary documents pertaining to the project of the society as well as property documents i.e. title deeds were not submitted by the complainant and as such no legal report/verification could be prepared for want of that and further no agreement was executed and no mortgage or security in respect of the loan was created in favour of OP by the borrowers. It was further contended that sanction of loan is distinct from disbursal of loan as the disbursal of the loan is made when all the formalities like getting legal and technical report, signing agreement and creating security/mortgage over the property in question are completed. All these formalities are got done before disbursal of loan and not before sanction of the loan and in the instant case these formalities were not completed by the complainants so, the loan amount could not be disbursed. However, these contentions have been repelled by the learned counsel for complainant.

7. A perusal of letter dated 26.11.2007 shows that earlier while sanctioning loan to the complainants, OPs wanted the ownership proof of existing house, NOC of P/L and Auto Loan as per IBIL but in the subsequent sanction dated 7.6.2008 the only document asked for was ‘ownership proof of existing house’ and not of the plot whereas the complainants had applied for loan for the construction of house on a vacant plot as mentioned in the loan application annexure R-1. OP never asked for title deeds of the plot in question. The complainants thus were not at fault in not submitting the title deeds of the plot as the same was not asked through any of the sanction orders. Further, it is the case of complainants that they had already submitted title deeds of the plot twice as demanded by OP. Had title deeds of the plot not been submitted to OPs, they would have certainly asked for the same through the sanction orders. All this goes a longway to show that complainants had already submitted the title deed of the plot and completed other formalities.

8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the above submissions and find from the documents and material placed on file that in fact after depositing the title deed and completion of formalities by the complainants, the loan sought by them had been sanctioned on 26.11.2007 and then on 7.6.2008. Not only that, information in that behalf was also accordingly sent to the complainants. It is also proved on the file that when OP had failed to disburse the loan, thereafter a legal notice was also served upon the OP on 29.8.2008. That notice was also not replied. This also gives an inference that OPs were deficient in discharging due service towards the complainants.

9. In these given facts and circumstances, we find no illegality with the impugned order dated 23.4.2009 which is well reasoned and justified. Consequently the appeal fails and same is hereby dismissed.

Certified copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to records.