BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.
FA No. 136 OF 2015 AGAINST CC No.463 OF 2013
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM-III, HYDERABAD
Between :
- M/s. L.I.C. Housing Finance Limited,
Having their Area office at First Floor,
Dr. Atmaram Estates, Hydernagar,
Besides T.M.C.Kukatpally,
Hyderabad -72.
- M/s. L.I.C. Housing Finance Limited,
Having their Back Office at 304 and 305,
Third Floor, Maitrivanam,
H.M.D.A. Complex, Ameerpet,
Hyderabad. ….Appellants / Opposite Parties
AND
- Kishore Kumar,
S/o. late Punnalal (died) per L.Rs. 3 and 4.
- Smt. Mankanwar W/o. Kishore Kumar,
aged about 54 years, Occ: Housewife,
C/o. M/s. Roop Jewelers,
7-2-750, Plot Market,
Secunderabad.
- Dhanjraj Jain S /o. Kishore Kumar,
aged about 36 years, Occ: Housewife,
C/o. M/s. Roop Jewelers,
7-2-750, Plot Market,
Secunderabad.
- Smt. Chanchal W/o. Rakesh Kumar,
aged about 32 years, Occ: Housewife,
C/o. M/s. Roop Jewelers,
7-2-750, Plot Market,
Secunderabad. …..Respondents / Complainants
Counsel for the Appellants / Opposite Parties : Sri B.Sairam Krishna
Counsel for the Respondents / Complainants : Sri P.Ramchander
Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla … President
&
Sri Patil Vithal Rao … Member
,
Thursday the Twenty Seventh day of July
Two thousand Seventeen
Oral Order : (Per Hon’ble Sri. Patil Vithal Rao, Member).
***
Challenge is made to the order dated 21.07.2015 passed by the District Consumer Forum – III [for brevity, ‘the District Forum’] Hyderabad in C.C.no. 463/2013 directing the Opposite parties, to refund to the Complainant a sum of Rs.26,668/- with interest @ 9% from 20.02.2013 till realization and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with costs of Rs.2,000/- by granting 30 days time for compliance.
2. The Complainants, who are the Respondents herein, have filed the said case against the Appellants herein by contending, in brief, that they approached one Mr. Amit Bafna Jain, an agent of the Opposite Parties finance Company, for a housing loan to purchase a house property adjacent to their house by making payment of Rs.44,000/- towards Upfront fee and submitting a loan application on 28.09.2012. Their further case is that on his insistence they took a Life Insurance Policy with an annual premium of Rs.98,500/- and paid the 1st premium on 31.12.2012 and also deposited their original title deeds and thus completed all the formalities to avail the loan amount. The Complainants have also contended that despite lapse of considerable period no loan was sanctioned and fed up with the attitude of the Opposite Parties they got issued legal notices on 24.01.2013 and 07.05.2013 seeking either disbursement of the loan amount or refund of the Upfront fee and the original title deeds. They also claimed damages of Rs.5,00,000/-. The Opposite Parties sent a reply notice on 07.02.2013 acknowledging processing fee of Rs.5,618/- and stated that they had nothing to do with the LIC Policy and that the Complainants failed to submit documentation kit with necessary Annexure. However, the Opposite Parties did not reply another legal notice dated 07.05.2013. Therefore by attributing deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties , the Complainants sought either disbursement of the loan amount or refund of the Upfront fee and return of the original title deeds with damages of Rs.5,00,000/- for causing mental agony to them.
3. The Opposite Parties who are the Appellants herein, have resisted the claim by way of filing a written version before the District Forum on the grounds, interalia, that they did not receive any other amount except a sum of Rs.5,618/- towards processing fee and that the sanction of the loan was finalised on 18.12.2012 for Rs.24,00,000/- subject to legality of the documents. They contended that by the date of submission of the original documents, the Complainants had already got executed a registered sale deed infavour of the Complainant no.2 from one Smt. Mamatha with regard to the house property and that as such the nature of the loan to be advanced had undergone a complete change. Therefore, the Opposite Parties initiated necessary procedure for it’s approval. Their further defence is that they are not aware about collection of Rs.44,000/-by their agent and also receipt of Rs.98,500/- towards Policy premium by him. Further, they have returned back the original title deeds to the counsel for the Complainants as per the direction of the District Forum in I.A.163/2013 and that the Process fee and Upfront fee are non-refundable. For these reasons they sought dismissal of the complaint.
4. By considering the documentary evidence under Exs.A1 to A11 filed by the complainants (no documents were filed by the Opposite Parties) and evidence affidavits of the parties and hearing them the District Forum passed the impugned order as noted in para no.1 supra.
5. The contention of the Appellants in the present Appeal, in brief, is that after purchase of the house property by the Complainants the nature of the loan itself had undergone a change, which required prior approval of the Regional Office and that the Complainants themselves failed to submit documentation kit and the original documents along with the loan application. Further, they never approached the Appellants to physically take back their title deeds and that even otherwise they have already received the same during pendency of the case before the District Forum. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Appellants. But, the District Forum did not consider all these material aspects in a right perspective but passed the impugned order contrary to law and against the facts on record and that as such the same is liable to be set aside.
6. Perused the material evidence placed on record and the written arguments of both the parties. Heard, both the learned counsel.
7. Now the point for consideration is that:-
whether the impugned order is erroneous and contrary to law and against the facts and that as such liable to be set aside?
8. Point: It is not in dispute that the complainants have approached the Opposite Parties through their Agent, Mr.Anil Bafna Jain to avail a loan for purchase of a house property by submitting a letter and that thereafter the loan of Rs.24 Lakhs was sanctioned on 18.12.2012. Ex.A1 is the sanction letter in this regard. Thereafter, the Complainants have completed necessary formalities of documentation by way of depositing the original title deeds on 03.01.2013. Ex.A2 is the acknowledgement letter to this effect issued by the Opposite Parties. However, it is a fact that even after lapse of more than 6 months, the loan was not disbursed to the Complainants and that when the vendor of the house property, Smt. M.Mamatha insisted for payment of the sale consideration by threatening to disposed off it to some other person in the event of failure of the Complainants to complete the sale transaction, the Complainants got registered the sale deed from her by managing consideration amount from some other sources. Thereafter, the complainants sought either disbursement of the loan amount, for making adjustment of the borrowed money, or to return back the original title deeds along with Upfront fee and Policy premium by way of issuing a legal notice vide Ex.A3 on 24.01.2013. The Opposite Parties, by way of a Reply notice, dated 07.02.2013, Ex.A4, took a strange defence on the premise that since the initial nature of purpose of loan was changed, it needed prior sanction from their Zonal Office. They have also shown ignorance about collecting of the amounts of Rs.44,000/- towards Upfront fee and other charges so also the Premium of Rs.98,500/- towards insurance Policy.
9. It is further to be noted that the specific defence of the Opposite Parties is that except a sum of Rs.5,618/-, no other amount was received by them from the complainants. But, the Upfront fee receipt under Exs.A5 shows that they received Rs.21,350/- which falsifies their contention. It is also pertinent to note that having received the legal notices dated 28.02.2013 and 07.05.2013 under EXs.A6 & A9 respectively from the complainants, the Opposite Parties did not choose to reply them. This aspect adversely reflects the conduct and attitude of the Opposite Parties. They have contended that the Upfront fee of Rs.21,350/- and Processing fee of Rs.5,618/- was not refundable as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. But in this regard it is to be noted that firstly, the loan agreement was never concluded and secondly, the Opposite Parties being in a dominant position and the complainants being in harness and distress, were compelled to enter into the agreement. Even otherwise there is no evidence to show that the complainants had agreed for the said term of non refundable clause under the loan transaction. Therefore, in our view, the Opposite Parties cannot put forth a defence that the complainants are not entitled to claim the said fees.
10. No doubt, the Opposite Parties have returned back the original title deeds to the complainants through their counsel during pendency of the case in C.C.no.463/2013 but it was only after filing of the petition in I.A.no.163/2013 and securing an order from the District Forum for the same. Thus, it is evident that the Opposite Parties retained the original title deeds of the complainants for quite long time of more than 6 months without valid reason causing undue hardship to them. Had they returned the said documents in time, the complainants could have managed to secure a loan from some other financial institution to meet their need.
11. The Opposite Parties have simply alleged that the complainants have failed to submit documentation kit with necessary annexures along with their loan application but there is no force in this contention for the simple reason that nothing prevented them from returning the loan application for due compliance immediately. But instead of that, they made the complainants to wait and suffer for quite long time defeating the very purpose of their attempt to secure a loan though infact necessary documentation was already completed within reasonable time by the complainants as evident from the record. All these mitigating factors amply justify their claim for compensation.
12. We have given careful consideration to the impugned order. The learned District Forum has meticulously considered all the material evidence placed on record and appreciated the same, in our opinion, in a right perspective, except noting the quantum of Upfront fees as Rs.21,500/- instead of Rs.21,350/- under Ex.A5, must be, by oversight. And we correct it as Rs.21,350/- accordingly. The conclusion arrived at by the District Forum is neither perverse nor erroneous. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the same deserves no interference. In this view of the matter we hold that the Appeal is devoid of any merits and as such liable to be dismissed.
13. The point is answered accordingly against the Appellants.
14. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed by modifying the impugned order directing the Appellants, jointly and severally, to refund to the Respondents the Upfront fees of Rs.21,350/- with interest @ 9% from the date of payment i.e., 20.02.2013 till realization and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with cost of Rs.5,000/-. Time for compliance one month.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Dt. 27.07.2017
