Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/844/2021

Sunil Dutt - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bank of Baroda - Opp.Party(s)

Devinder Kumar

05 Oct 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/844/2021
Date of Institution	:	3/12/2021
Date of Decision	:	05/10/2023

 

Sunil Dutt son of Sh. Lalit Parshad resident of House NO.1630, Sector 23, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.   Bank of Baroda, SCO No.62-63, Madhya Marg, Sector 26 Chandigarh through MD/Authorized signatory.

2.   Bank of Baroda, Branch Mullanpur Garibdass, SAS Nagar, Mohali through its Branch Manager

3.   National Housing Bank, Core 5-A, India Habitat Centre, Lodhi Road, New Delhi through its authorized signatory/Incharge.  

4.   Housing and Urban Development Corporation Limited, Corporate Office:- HUDCO Bhawan, Core 7-A, India Habitat Centre, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110 003 through its authorized signatory/Incharge.

     2nd Address:-

Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd., (HUDCO), Regional Office:- Shreyas Chamber, 2nd Floor, 175, Dr.D.N.Road, Fort, Mumbai 400 001 Maharashtra.

   … Opposite Parties.

    

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY		Sh.Devinder Kumar, Advocate for complainant.
		Sh.Sandeep Kapoor, Advocate proxy for Sh. Anil Johar, Advocate for OP No.1&2.
		Sh.Gitesh Sharma, Advocate proxy for Sh. Deepender Singh, Advocate for OP No.3
		Ms. Mannu Chaudhary, Advocate for OP No.4.

 

Per SURJEET KAUR, Member

          Briefly stated, the complainant obtained a housing loan of Rs.38 (later on reduced to Rs.30 lacs) lacs from the OP Bank on 4.12.2018 and to avail benefit under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana, submitted necessary documents to OP Bank. Thereafter, the complainant received an SMS in August, 2020 that Application ID bearing NO.C0001608348 has been generated from Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana - PMAY (U) – Class and was advised to retain the ID for status tracking  (Ann.C-2). However, waiting for long, the complainant neither got any response or benefit. It is stated that the complainant also sent numerous emails/reminder to the OPs time & again but to no avail. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed.

2.        In their written statement OPs No.1 & 2 while admitting the factual matrix about disbursal of loan to the complainant, stated that the complainant never approached them to register himself under the said scheme.  It is submitted that the complainant never approached the OPs No.1 & 2 with regard to the application in PMAY Scheme after the sanction of loan. It is also submitted that neither the complainant executed any application for the said scheme nor he submitted any documents regarding the same with answering OP bank.  It is stated that the complainants might have applied for the said Scheme of PMAY Scheme Online which resulted in the generation of application number of which the OP Bank has no knowledge.  It is also stated that the OP Bank has no clue about any application made by the complainant in the PMAY Scheme, therefore, there was no point of consideration of any such e-mails by the side of the OP Bank.  It is further stated that the complainant has availed the services of the OP Bank just for the disbursement of the home loan and no other services were availed by the complainant from them. It is submitted that the complainant never approached the OP bank for the said scheme, so no cause of action arisen against him. Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the OPs NO.1 & 2 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.        The OP No.3 in its written statement stated that  that w.e.f. 1.10.2019, the Bank of Baroda (BoB) has executed MOU with HUDCO for implementation of PMAY-CLSS, who will be the focal Central Nodal Agency for processing subsidy applications with regard to home loans provided by Bank of Baroda and answering OP has nothing to do with the case of the complainant being not related in any sense.  It is submitted that as on date no record matching the Loan Account number as provided by the complainant has been found among the claim accepted by answering OP.  Denying other allegation, the OP NO.3 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua it.

4.        The OP NO.4 in its written reply stated that the dispute in question does not pertain to it as the OP NO.4 is merely a Central Nodal Agency which works on the data/facts received from the Primary Lending Institutions.  It is stated that bank uploads the claim of the borrower on web portal i.e. Awas Portal and after demographic verification of borrower, an application ID is generated and once the Bank uploads the eligible claims on Central Nodal Agency with Application ID earlier generated, the Central Nodal Agency will process the claim on record basis based on uploaded data and incase of any mismatch, the claims are queried or rejected and such queried and rejected claim will appear on the bank page.  It is submitted that the subsidy claim of the complainant was uploaded by the OP Bank on 21.7.2020 but it was rejected by the Portal on 21.7.2020 due to wrong installment number (3) and mismatch of the cumulative loan disbursement with the loan disbursement submitted upto previous installment.  It is stated that after the said rejection, the OP No.1 & 2 bank have not uploaded the revised claim form, so it is not the answering OP No.4 which is at fault, rather the bank OP No.1 & 2 which have been lax.  It is also submitted that the answering OP No.4 is working only as a facilitator for channelizing the subsidy to Bank/PLI out of the fund released by the Govt. of India on first come first serve basis and the complainant is not consumer of answering OP NO.4.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying all other allegations, the OP No.4 has prayed for dismissal of complaint qua it. 

5.       Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.

6.       Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.

7.       We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.

8.       The complainant admittedly availed Home Loan from the OP No.1 & 2 Bank. 

9.       The grouse of the complainant is that he submitted all the requisite documents and applications to the OPs No.1 & 2 banks for forwarding the same to the quarter concerned for getting benefit of PMAY available to Home Loan borrowers, but the OPs slept on the matter and did nothing fruitful, causing loss and harassment to him.

10.      The stand of the OP No.1 & 2 Bank (Bank of Baroda) is that the complainant never approached them with regard to said Scheme; he neither executed any application for the said scheme nor he submitted any documents in this regard with answering OP bank and that the complainant might have applied for the said Scheme Online and they have no clue about any such application made by the complainant in the said Scheme.

11.      However, this stand of the OPs No.1 & 2 Bank expressing complete ignorance about receipt or processing of any such application of the complainant has been falsified & disapproved from the version of the OP No.4-HUDCO with whom the OP Bank admittedly has entered MOU in respect of said scheme.  The OP No.4 has categorically stated in their written reply supported by duly sworn affidavit that the OP Bank had uploaded the claim of the complainant with it on 21.07.2020, which was rejected on that very day i.e. 21.7.2020 due to wrong installment number (3) and mismatch of the cumulative loan disbursement with the loan disbursement submitted upto previous installment.  Further it is also clear and proved from the written version of the OP No.4 with whom the claim form was uploaded/filed by the OP Bank that the claim was rejected on 21.07.2020 - due to wrong installment number (3) and Cumulative Loan disbursement mismatch with the Loan disbursement submitted upto previous installment and the revised claim was submitted only on 20.05.2021 i.e. almost after a long period of 10 months of the rejection of the claim for the reasons best known to the OP-Bank.  Therefore, it is clearly made out that the OP-Bank adopted lackadaisical attitude in dealing with the case of the complainant knowing fully well that the complainant’s claim of credit scheme under PMAY from the government depends on first come first serve basis.  However, the OP Bank slept over the matter and woke up from their deep slumber at the eleventh hour, which is not, at all, expected from a prime financial institute of repute like the OPs No.1 & 2. Had the OPs No.1 & 2 removed the said objection/query within a reasonable period, say one or two months, then there was every possibility that the complainant would get the claim of credit scheme under PMAY, but the chances of the complainant to get the said benefit seriously prejudiced due to their lethargic style of working & inaction, as the said relief, undisputedly, was to be provided by the authority concerned on the principle of first come first serve basis. This fact is clearly established & corroborated from the version of OP No.-4(HUDCO) in its reply wherein it is specified that subsidy to bank/PLI out of the fund released by the government was on first come first serve basis.  Otherwise also, it is clear from the written reply of OP No.4 that the scheme is closed by the Central Government, no further releases/processing is possible for the claims received/pending/rejected/ queried under MIG category.

12.      It appears that the OP Bank, in order to hide their said deficient acts, preferred to take a false plea of showing complete ignorance about receipt & forwarding of any such application of the complainant thereby misleading this Commission, which falls flat after the OP No.4 filed reply controverting their stand categorically.  The OP Bank has not denied or disputed that the email addresses mentioned on Ann. C-3 (Colly) sent by the complainant in respect of his claim case, which means they must have in receipt of said emails.  It is also not the case of the OP Bank that the complainant can get his application processed & finalized at his own end without any role of the OP Bank. Meaning thereby that the claim of the complainant must have been processed & validated from the end of OP Bank being Prime Lending Institute and the complainant could not get it finalized at his own, as has been tried to be projected by the OP Bank in their reply, in order to cover-up their error and deficient acts. The aforesaid acts on the part of the OP-Bank amounts not only to negligence on their part but also deficiency in service in dealing with such matters.

13.      It is not disputed by either of the OPs that the credit benefit or subsidy under the scheme was to be granted by the Govt. of India and is served on the basis of first come first serve and not by them and at the most it would have been approved through the OP NO.4 only.  The Govt. of India is not a party to the present complaint. Therefore, the present complaint qua the OP Bank with regard to deficiency in service is very well maintainable.  However, the complaint qua the OP No.4 in respect of the credit benefit or subsidy claim is not maintainable before this Commission.  Further, we do not find any deficiency on the part of the OP NO.4 as it has ultimately attended the application of complainant but the same is hanging fire due to delayed submission of the revised claim by OPs No.1 and 2 after its first rejection, which establishes deficiency on the part of OP Bank.  Thus the act & conduct of the OP Bank clearly proves their deficiency in service, as a result, the complainant has to suffer mental agony, harassment, loss and has been forced to enter into present litigation.   

14.      Taking into consideration the above discussion and findings, the claim of complainant for grant of subsidy is not maintainable before this Commission, and the complaint to this extent stands rejected. However, we are of the opinion that the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs NO.1 & 2 has been proved. Therefore, the present complaint is partly allowed. The OPs No.1 & 2  are directed as under:-

1. to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
2. to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

          This order be complied with by the OPs No.1&2 within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing  of complaint, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(ii) above.

15.      The complaint qua the OPs NO.3 & 4 stands dismissed.

16.      Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.

          Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			sd/- [Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
05/10/2023