Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/847/2016

Nagesh Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Area Manager, LIC Housing Finance Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

06 Mar 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/847/2016
Date of Institution	:	23/09/2016
Date of Decision	:	06/03/2018

 

Nagesh Sharma R/o H.No. 1402/7, Sector 65, Mohali – 160062 (Pb.)

…..Complainant

 

V E R S U S

 

 

(1)     Area Manager, LIC Housing Finance Limited (LIC-HFL), SCO 1112-13, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.

 

(2)     MD & CEO, LIC-HFL, Corporate Office, Maker Tower-F, 13^th Floor, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai – 400005.

……Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	SMT.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                               

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person.
		Sh. Sumit Batra, Counsel for Opposite Parties.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

1.         Briefly stated the facts of the case, as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the Complainant had applied for a Housing Loan to purchase a residential flat, auctioned by JCT Electronic Limited, Mohali, through an auction. It has been averred that the Complainant participated in bid process and was allotted Flat No.1402/07 (First Floor). Accordingly, an allotment letter dated 18.07.2013 was issued to him by JCT Electronics Ltd., which contained the terms & conditions of the allotment. It has been further averred that the Complainant applied for availing loan from LIC-HFL, Sector 22, Chandigarh and in pursuance of the same a loan agreement was also executed. It has been also averred that the Complainant had also paid the upfront fee of Rs.5000/- plus service tax Rs.618/- (Total Rs.5618/-). The Opposite Parties had also collected all necessary stamp papers/ judicial papers/ notary with re-payment conditions along with the expenditure of Rs.2000/- in cash. However, the Opposite Parties failed to disburse the loan amount. It has been alleged that when inspite of sanctioning of the loan, the Opposite Parties did not disburse the same, the Complainant moved a fresh application to the Canara Bank and had to pay fee of Rs.12,300/- for sanction of loan. Thereafter, the Canara Bank had sanctioned the loan for the satisfaction of the purpose. It has been alleged that due to negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant’s valuable time got wasted as the bid payment was delayed to BIFR and the 2^nd installment was paid on 17.02.2014, as a result of which after paying delayed payment interest he got the possession almost two years later than bid conditions. Hence, alleging the aforesaid act & conduct of the Opposite Parties as deficiency in service, the Complainant has filed the present Complaint.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.
3.         Opposite Parties in their joint reply, while admitting the factual aspects of the case, have pleaded that the disbursement of loan is the discretion of the lending authority and the loan is to be disbursed only after getting all the necessary formalities, clearances and investigations completed with regard to the loan and the same is to be made in accordance with the directions and terms & conditions of the company. It has been asserted that the loan was sanctioned to the Complainant provisionally and it was categorically mentioned in the loan offer letter that the title of the property should be clear but in the present case, the title was not acceptable to disburse loan and the same was not disbursed, the balance processing fee was also not taken and the part fee taken was for the processing of the file only. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 
4.         The complainant has filed rejoinder, wherein he has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Parties.
5.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
6.         We have gone through the entire evidence, written arguments submitted by the Opposite Parties, and heard the arguments addressed by the Complainant and Ld. Counsel for Opposite Parties.
7.         The sole question which needs to be determined is whether the non-releasing of the loan amount by the Opposite Parties is legally justified. The answer to this is in affirmative.
8.         It is relevant to mention that sanction letter does not mean that the Opposite Parties are bound to give loan to the Complainant. The loan is disbursed after getting all the necessary formalities, clearances and investigations completed with regard to the loan and the same is to be made in accordance with the certain terms & conditions.
9.         So far as the question of sending sanction letter to the Complainant is concerned, it does not mean that the Opposite Parties are bound to give loan to the Complainant. The loan is always given by a lending authority to its customer subject to certain terms and conditions. Pertinently, the loan was sanctioned to the Complainant provisionally subject to the condition of clear title acceptable to LIC-HFL. Relevant condition to that effect has been found duly mentioned in Annexure-D that “the aforesaid sanction of the loan amount will be subject to the following additional conditions: clear & marketable title, satisfactory valuation and inspection……”. In these circumstances, it is safe to conclude that the grant of loan is the discretion of the lending authority and the Complainant cannot force LIC-HFL to disburse the loan. Moreover, the Complainant has miserably failed to produce any cogent/ authentic document on record to prove his case.
10.         As a result of the above discussion, it is held that the Complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, with the result, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.     
11.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

 

	Sd/-	Sd/-
06/03/2018	[ Suresh Kumar Sardana ]	[ Surjeet Kaur]
	Member	Presiding Member
“Dutt”