Haryana

Karnal

CC/312/2021

Sanjeev Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Aadhar Housing Finance Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sudhakar Mittal

05 Jun 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                        Complaint No. 312 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt.06.07.2021

                                                        Date of Decision:05.06.2023

 

1.     Sanjeev Kumar son of Shri Ram Krishan, resident of Village Sikri, Tehsil Nilokheri, District Karnal. Aadhar No.7174 7771 6664.

2.     Seema wife of Shri Sanjeev Kumar, resident of Village Sikri, Tehsil Nilokheri, District Karnal. Aadhaar No.7752 4341 8181

                                               …….Complainants.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Aadhar Housing Finance Limited through its Branch Manager/authorized representative having one of its Branch Office situated at First Floor, SCO No.334, Mughal Canal, Karnal.

2.     Aadhar Housing Finance Limited, Second Floor, Dhand Road, Opposite Easy Day Club, Kaithal, Haryana 1360027,  through Shri Krishan Kashyap, Manager/authorized representative.

                                                                      …..Opposite parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary….Member

 

 

 Argued by: Shri Deepak Gupta, counsel for the complainants.

Shri Deepak Saini, counsel for the OPs.

 

                    (Dr. rekha chaudahry, member)

 

ORDER:  

 

                The complainants have filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that the complainants are inter-se related as husband and wife, want to construct a new house in their village Sikri, Tehsil Nilokheri, District Karnal with modern facilities and for that very purpose, complainant No.1 entered into an agreement with Kapil son of Satbir, resident of Sikri, Tehsil Nilokheri, District Karnal, for purchase of a house having area 138.88 square yards for valuable consideration of Rs.12,00,000/-. Complainant No.1 made the advance payment of Rs.2,00,000/- to vendor namely Kapil and remaining amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was payable at the time of execution and registration of sale deed. The opposite parties after scrutiny of papers, assured the complainants for advancing the loan amount and asked to enter into agreement with vendor and obtained Rs.4130/- from the complainant on 08.07.2020, as processing fee of the loan. After sanctioning the loan amount, Ops have obtained ten blank signed cheques from complainant No.1 as security cheques and told the complainants to proceed further for execution and registration of sale deed. Before target date i.e. 31.08.2020, OP No.2 informed the complainant that due to reasons beyond their control they were not in a position to advance the said loan amount as property falls within the lal dora of the village. Due to non-advancing the loan amount, the complainants requested the Ops to make refund of Rs.4130/- charged from them by the Ops as processing fee and Rs.25,700/- as margin money but instead of making refund, the Ops started deducting EMIs from the bank account of complainant No.1 by using security cheques. Despite repeated requests, the Ops deducted four EMIs of Rs.13,310/- each from the complainant No.1’s account maintained with The Karnal Central Co-operative Bank Limited. The Ops allured the complainant by giving false assurances to obtain another loan on some commercial property. The OPs further assured to make adjustment of the illegal deductions with interest in the fresh loan transaction and for this very purpose further obtained a sum of Rs.4130/- from the complainant on 28.01.2021, for sanctioning loan of Rs.10,00,000/- approx against the commercial property situated at Nilokheri. The complainants showed all the documents qua the title of the property to the OPs, before entering into agreement with vendor namely Rekha. Before target date i.e. 30.05.2021, the Ops further back out from its commitment to advance loan of Rs.10,00,000/- approx. and thus committed act of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence, prayed for allowing the complaint.

2.             On notice, OPs appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action, locus standi, jurisdiction, suppression of true and material facts, etc. On merits, it is submitted that on the request of complainants, a loan of Rs.9,60,000/- was sanctioned in favour of complainants after completion of all formalities and on the request of complainants a cheque No.800460 dated 31.07.2020 of Rs.9,80,000/- was prepared in the name of Kapil with whom the complainants have entered into an agreement for purchase of property. The complainants were requested several times to receive their cheque but the complainants did not turn up for the reasons best known to them. The OPs have spent maximum time for the completion of formalities and suffered mental pain and agony. The entire loan amount alongwith interest was to be repaid by the complainants in monthly installments and since the cheque was prepared and was kept ready and the amount was kept reserved for the complainants, so the OPs have debited the installments from the account of the complainants. The complainants moved an application for cancelling the loan amount. On their requests, the cheque was cancelled and amount so deducted in three installments were returned to the complainants. The OPs also returned other expenses to the complainants and this fact is very much proved from the account statement of the complainants. The GST amount deducted cannot be returned as the same has been paid to the department. Hence, the complainants are not  entitled for any amount from the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel or the complainants have tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of agreement Ex.C1, agreement to sell Ex.C2, Site plan Ex.C3, copy of application moved to Tehsildar Ex.C4, copy of sale deed Ex.C5, copy of receipt issued by MC Nilokheri Ex.C6, coy of receipt issued by MC, Nilokheri Ex.C7, copy of application moved to Tehsildar, Nilokheri Ex.C8, copy of site plan Ex.C9, copy of account statement Ex.C10, copy of account statement Ex.C11, copy of receipt Ex.C12, copy of receipt Ex.C13, copy of receipt Ex.C14, copy of life insurance Ex.C15, copy of life insurance Ex.C16, copy of certificate of insurance Ex.C17 and closed the evidence on 12.04.2022 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has tendered into evidence affidavit of Parveen Kumar, Branch Manager, as Ex.OP1, copy of application of cancellation of loan Ex.OP2, copy of account statement Ex.OP3, copy of cancel cheque Ex.OP4, and closed the evidence on 15.03.2023 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant No.1 entered into an agreement with Kapil son of Satbir, resident of Sikri, Tehsil Nilokheri, District Karnal, for purchase of a house having area 138.88 square yards for valuable consideration of Rs.12,00,000/. The opposite parties after scrutiny of papers, assured the complainants for advancing the loan amount and asked to enter into agreement with vendor and obtained Rs.4130/- from the complainant on 08.07.2020, as processing fee of the loan. After sanctioning the loan amount, Ops have obtained ten blank signed cheques from complainant No.1 as security cheques and told the complainants to proceed further for execution and registration of sale deed. Due to non-advancing the loan amount, the complainants requested the Ops to make refund of Rs.4130/- charged from them by the Ops as processing fee and Rs.25,700/- as margin money but instead of making refund, the Ops started deducting EMIs from the bank account of complainant No.1 by using security cheques. Despite repeated requests, the Ops deducted four EMIs of Rs.13,310/- each from the complainant No.1’s account. The OPs further assured to make adjustment of the illegal deductions with interest in the fresh loan transaction and for this very purpose further obtained a sum of Rs.4130/- from the complainant on 28.01.2021, for sanctioning loan of Rs.10,00,000/- approx against the commercial property situated at Nilokheri. Before target date i.e. 30.05.2021, the Ops further back out from its commitment to advance loan of Rs.10,00,000/- approx and lastly prayed for allowing the present complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that on the request of complainants, a loan of Rs.9,60,000/- was sanctioned in favour of complainants. A cheque No.800460 dated 31.07.2020 of Rs.9,80,000/- was prepared in the name of Kapil with whom the complainants have entered into an agreement for purchase of property. Despite several requests, complainant never came up to receive the cheque. The entire loan amount alongwith interest was to be repaid by the complainants in monthly installments and since the cheque was prepared and was kept ready and the amount was kept reserved for the complainants, so the OPs have debited the installments from the account of the complainants. On the request of complainants, the loan was cancelled and OPs returned the whole amount except GST and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             Admittedly, the complainants have applied for a loan from the OPs and after checking all the documents, the OPs have sanctioned the loan in favour of the complainant but the amount was not disbursed in favour of the complainant despite sanctioning of loan and as per OPs, they have prepared the cheque but the complainants have not come to receive the cheque of loan amount. From the account statement Ex.OP3, it reveals that an amount of Rs.9,80,000/- was debited from the account of the OPs on 31.10.2020 and credited the same on the same day but the EMIs of the loan amount have been credited in the account of OPs on 11.08.2020, 10.09.2020 and 13.10.2020 i.e. before debiting and crediting the loan amount. From the perusal of account statements placed on record by the complainants i.e. Ex.C10 and Ex.C11, shows only debiting of payment of processing fees and other charges paid to the OPs but there is no entry of receiving of any amount from the OPs either of loan amount or of refunding of charges as received by the OPs.

10.           Furthermore, if for the sake of arguments, if the version of OPs is believed that they have prepared the cheque in the name of vendor namely Kapil and the complainant could not come to receive the same even in that case also, only by preparing of cheque in the name of anybody does not make the entry of debiting of loan amount from the account of OPs as shown by them, hence falsify the version of OPs. Furthermore, OPs have alleged that loan account has been closed on the written application Ex.OP2 moved by the complainant. Said application has been strongly opposed by the complainant on the ground that at the time of processing the loan, OPs had obtained the signatures of complainant on various paper and same would have been converted on the said application. He further submitted that he has not moved any such application before the OP, that’s why said application has been written by any other person rather than complainant.  As the handwriting of signature and handwriting of the contents of the application does not match with each other. It seems that the application has been drafted by the OPs on the blank signed paper of the complainant, which was obtained by them at the time of applying for the loan by the complainants.

15.           Keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the OPs have sanctioned the loan amount but did not disburse the same, rather deducted EMIs from the account of complainants and after deducting the EMIs, cancelled the loan and after cancelling the loan, did not return the amount to the complainants. Thus, they have committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

16.           In view of the above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to pay the deposited amount by the complainants alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposition till its realization. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainants on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and Rs.5500/- for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order.  The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:05.06.2023                                                                  

 

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.      

(Vineet Kaushik)             (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                     Member                          Member