BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 16th day of August 2017
Filed on : 26-10-2015
PRESENT:
Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.
CC.No.707/2015
Between
Mercy Kurian, : Complainant
W/o. M.P. Kuriachan, (party-in-person)
C1 Appartment, White Rose,
Vazhakkala,
Thrikkakara-682 021.
And
Branch Manager, DHFL, : Opposite party
1st floor, KMM building, (By Adv. K. Thygarajeswaran,
Near Hotel Renaissance, M/s. Master & Thyagu, 3rd floor.
Palarivattom, Kochi-682 025. North Plaza, North Railway Station
Road, Ernakulam-682 018)
O R D E R
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
1. Complainant's case
2. The complainant had availed a loan from LIC Housing finance limited, Ernakulam for an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- agreeing to pay fixed interest at 9.6%. p.a. for 7 years at Fiesta , Kaloor on September 2014. The opposite party M/s. DHFL through its sales executive Shri. Dileep Kumar collected all the documents from the complainant with an offer to take over the said loan. The documents were collected on 20-11-2014 and the complainant as per cheque No. 863193 paid the processing fee to the opposite party. On 23-11-2014 the complainant received a message from the opposite party stating that her application number 0105 3836 with DHFL has been sanctioned for an amount of Rs. 7,49.904/-. Later on the opposite party did not contact the complainant. When the complainant contacted the opposite party during December 2014 she was informed that the rate of interest for the loan would be 10.15% . As the complainant had already paid the processing fee, the complainant agreed for the rate of interest offered by the opposite party. Thereafter there was no response . Later the complainant had sent an e-mail to the opposite party enquiringly about the increase in the interest rate and the delay in processing the loan. The complainant was asked to submit prior documents and blue prints of the delay. The complainant obtained the same from LIC on payment of Rs. 1,140/-and produced before the opposite party. Even after all the requirements to be satisfy the complainant does not informed that the loan was processed. The complainant therefore seeks refund of the processing fee paid at Rs. 5,618/-, in addition to the conveyance charge at Rs. 3,500/- and Rs. 70,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony. She filed the complaint on 26-10-2015.
3. Notice was issued to the opposite party. The opposite party appeared and filed a preliminary objection resisting the claim, contending inter-alia that the complaint is not maintainable though on 27-01-2016 it was submitted that version was filed, no version is seen to have been filed.
4. The following issues were settled for consideration
i. Whether the complaint is maintainable?
ii. Has the complainant proved that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
iii. Reliefs and costs.
5. The evidence in this case consists of the documentary evidence Exbt. A1 to A12 on the side of the complainant and Exbts. B1 to B3 on the side to the opposite party. The complainant was examined as PW1. The opposite party did not adduce any oral evidence. Heard both sides.
5.Issue No. 1 and 2. During examination of the complainant as PW1, she admitted that there was no evidence produced by her to prove that the opposite party had agreed to take over the loan which was already granted by the LIC housing finance. She also gave evidence during cross-examination that there was no documents to prove that she received a message from the opposite party stating that an amount of Rs. 7,49,904/- was sanctioned by the opposite party. The original interest rate agreed by LIC Housing finance was 9.6% p.a. as fixed interest . We are unable to comprehend as to why any how the complainant had agreed to pay 10.5% interest while taking over the loan by the opposite party. When the complainant was granted a loan with 9.6% interest by LIC and if the complainant was regularly repaying the loan there would not have been any reason for her to approach the opposite party to take over the loan at a higher rate of interest. The loan application filed by the complainant before the opposite party shows that the husband of the complainant was also a co-applicant, but he has not made a party to the complaint. The complainant while being examined as PW1 agreed that the husband of the complainant had availed another loan from LIC Housing. The details of such loan were sought by the opposite party. However, the complainant did not provide the details as called for. It is true that the complainant produced Exbt. A10 and A11 to show that the loan availed by the husband of the complainant from LIC was closed. However, there is no evidence to show that those documents were produced before the opposite party in time.
6. It was further contended that the complainant was not a consumer as she did not avail any service from the opposite party. She has made only an application for availing the service from the opposite party by way of a housing loan. The complainant had voluntarily paid the processing fee in order to meet the expenses for scrutinizing the documents produced by her for the purpose of exercising the discretion of the opposite party in either granting or rejecting the loan. The opposite party has not granted the loan to the complainant. The processing of the application for loan was not completed for want of co-operation from the complainant as she is not seen to have produced the relevant documents for required for scrutinizing the credibility of the applicants for loan.
7. In the above circumstances, we find that the complainant did not avail any service from the opposite party as no loan was sanctioned to her. The complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party as the co-applicant of the loan papers has not been made a party to this complaint. The complainant did not adduce any cogent evidence regarding the payment of the processing fee to the opposite party. In the above circumstances, we find the issue against the complainant.
8. Issue No. iii. Having find that the issue number 1 and 2 against the complainant, we find that the complaint is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 16th day of August 2017
Sd/-
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Sd/-
Sheen Jose, Member.
Sd/-
Beena Kumari V.K., Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent
Appendix
Complainant's Exhibits:
Exbt. A1 :Account statement for the period from
01-11-2014 to 30-11-2014
A2 : G-mail dt. 13-01-2013
A3 : G.Mail dt. 13-01-2015
A4 : G.Mail dt. 30-01-2015
A5 : G.mail dt. 03-02-2015
A6 : G-mail dt. 11-02-2015
A7 : G.mail dt. 16-02-2015
A8 : Copy of letter dt. 25-08-2015
A9 : Visiting card
A10 : Letter dt. 26-03-2015
A11 : Letter dt. 26-03-2015
A12 : Certificate dt. 26-11-2015
Opposite party's Exhibits :
Exbt. B1 : G.mail
B2 : G.Mail dt. 23-02-2013
B3 : G.Mail dt. 28-04-2017
Deposition:
PW1 : Ms. Mercy Kurian
Copy of order despatched on:
By Post : By Hand:
