District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.

Consumer Complaint  No.155/2021.

 Date of Institution: 18.03.2021.

Date of Order: 21.11.2022.

Shri Pankaj Chechi S/o sh. Chain Singh Chechi R/o H.No.879, Sector-31, Faridabad, Haryana.

                                                                   …….Complainant……..

                                                Versus

1.                HDFC, Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited, First floor, Ansals Plaza, Sector-15A, Mathura Road, Faridabad, Haryana through its Branch head.

Regd. Office:

Ramon House, HT Parekh Marg, 169, Backbay Reclaimation, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020.

2.                Mr. Pankaj Gangwar, Sales Executive, HDFC, Housing Dvelopment Finance Corporation Limited, First floor, Ansals Plaza, Sector-15A, Mathura road, Faridabad, Haryana.

3.                Mr. Sushil, Sales Head/Manager, HDFC, Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited, First floor, Ansals Plaza, Secator-15A, Mathura Road, Faridabad, Haryana.

                                                                   …Opposite parties……

Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Now  amended  Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.

BEFORE:             Amit Arora……………..President

Mukesh Sharma…………Member.

Indira Bhadana………….Member.

PRESENT:           Sh.  Manish,  counsel for the complainant.

                             Sh.  Rajiv Rana, counsel for opposite parties Nos.1to 3.

ORDER:  

                             The facts in brief of the complaint are that in the month of Aug 2020, He went to a property consultant who give him multiple option & out of those options, he had decided to purchase the 1 Bhk flat in Auric City Homes, Sector-82, Faridabad, Haryana. The above said flat the complainant require the Home Loan for which the property consultant referred respondent no 1 with the compliment of the best assured service. The respondent no 2 contacted the complainant & visited to the address of the complainant & induce to submit the documents. At the time of discussion the complainant requested that amount equivalent to the 90% of the property value was required by the complainant only then he would be able to purchase the said property.  He was assured by respondent no 2 on behalf of respondent no 1 that the loan definitely be sanction for the required amount & induce to submit the document & sign the application form & issue the cheque amounting Rs 5800/- in the name of respondent no 1 towards the processing fees which will only be presented subjected to disbursement of the loan amount. Believing the facts & assurances of respondent no 2, the complainant provided the self attested required document & sign the blank application form on dated 27th Aug 2020. After waiting for the long period,

the complainant got the call from the respondent no 2 & directed the complainant to give an undertaking over email to close one existing personal loan of 3,31,000/- which was provided by Bajaj Finserv & on the basis of the closure of the loan, the home loan equivalent to 90% will be sanctioned. Having no other option left, the complainant agreed to fulfill the condition & undertakes over email to close the loan. In the month of Sep 2020, the cheque issued by the complainant was presented by the respondents & the same was credited in the account of respondent no 1. In the end of Sep 2020, the complainant got an SMS from respondent No 1 that the amount of Rs 12,00,000/- has been sanctioned & the complainant has to contact the branch for disbursement. The respondent no 2 asked the complainant to fulfill the requirement of closure of the personal loan, submission of the Stamp papers of Rs 300/- approx. & payment receipt of down payment, only than the sanctioned loan amount will get disbursed. As per the undertaking & as per the condition of the respondents, the complainant pre closed the personal loan, Bank account statement & paid an amount of Rs 5952/- towards the pre closure charges. The stamp papers were submitted & the advance payment of Rs 1,38,330/- were made to the builder S3 Infrareality Pvt Ltd (Auric City Homes, Sector-82, Faridabad) & got the allotment in the name of his wife namely Mrs Rachna Chechi. After regular follow up for disbursement, the complainant finally got the call from respondent no 2 & 3 & to the utter surprise, the respondent denied for disbursement & offer that they can only release 55% of the property value which would not suffice the requirement of the respondent. The complainant sent several messages & emails to HDFC senior staff & explained the whole issue, but haven't got any satisfactory.  The opposite parties conduct clearly reflects that the opposite

parties had no intention to live up to its own obligation and the opposite parties were aware that the loan sanctioned by the opposite parties would not be disbursed. In the interest of justice following claim arises:-

a)                Towards Processing fees                                        Rs 5,800/-

b).               Towards pre closure charges paid for                     Rs.5,952/-

personal loan closure.              

c)                 Interest on amount paid for loan closure

d)                Towards Mental agony                                          Rs 50,000/-

e)                Towards suffering Physical and Mental                  Rs.50,000/-

harassment by the officialsof opposite parties.

f)                 Towards legal Practioners and Professionals                    Rs 22,000/-

fees..

g).               Towards stationery and postage                                      Rs.  5,000/-

Total Rs 1.38,752/-

The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint.  The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties

 that the claim of the complainant in tune of Rs 1,38,752/- along with interest @ 12% per annum and pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . Any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission thinks fit may be given in favour of the complainant.

2.                Opposite parties  put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite parties refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complainant had approached the respondent company for Housing Loan of Rs. 15,00,000/- vide application dated 20.08.2020 and the complainant written a letter dated 25.08.2020 vide which the complainant requested sanction of the loan without property documents on the basis of his credit documents provided for assessment as he had not finalized the property for which the loan was applied. The said loan application was pre-approved application wherein property had not been selected by the complainant and for the process of loan, the processing fees paid at for profile appraisal was Rs. 5900/- and accordingly the income of the complainant was appraised and a loan of Rs. 12.00.000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs only) was sanctioned vide sanction letter dated 28.09.2020.  The complainant was very much aware that the said processing fee was nonrefundable and same was clearly mentioned in the loan application form dated 20.08.2020 which was duly signed by the complainant. It is submitted that as per clause 10 and 12 of the sanction letter loan was sanctioned subject to the closure of personal loan of Rs. 3,31,000/- taken from M/s Bajaj Finserve and Maximum LTV of 55% of the property value as assessed by the respondent company. It is further submitted that as per Builder Buyer Agreement dated 29.09.2020 the cost of the property was Rs. 13,08,330/- and thereafter various mails exchanged between the complainant and the respondent company, wherein the grievances of the complainant was duly replied by the respondent company as the complainant raised questions regarding special

condition of LTP 55% of the property value and closure of personal loan. On the basis of average of last two years profits (monthly income calculated at Rs. 74,371/-) and existing monthly obligations of the complainant were Rs. 56,778/- out of which EMI of Rs. 7862/- which the complainant was already paying for his personal loan account and hence, keeping in view of the profit of the complainant, the complainant was offered only upto 55% of the property value (ie. 55% of Rs. 13,8330/- equal to Rs. 7,19.400/-) subject to closure of his previous loan and as per calculation, the respondent company offered complainant the loan of Rs. 7,19,400% which the complainant refused to accept and declined the offer of the respondent company:    Opposite parties denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.

5.                In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties– M/s. Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd & Others. with the prayer to the opposite parties that the claim of the complainant in tune of Rs 1,38,752/- along with interest @ 12% per annum and pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . Any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission thinks fit may be given in favour of the complainant.

                   To establish his case the complainant  has led in his evidence,  Ex.Cw1/A – affidavit of Shir Pankaj Chechi,  Ex.C-1/1 – Certificate u/s 65b of the Indian Evidence Act,, Ex. C-1to 3 – emails, Ex.C-4 – receipt, Ex.C-5 & 6 – emails.

On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties strongly agitated

and opposed.  As per the evidence of the opposite parties Ex.R-1 – letter of authority, Ex.R-2 – Individual Loan Application Form, Ex..R-3 – letter dated 25.08.2020 regarding sanction of the loan without property documents, Ex.R-4 – sanction letter, Ex.R-5 – Flat Buyer’s .

6.                During the course of argument, counsel for the complainant argued at length and also requested for the refund of the processing fee.  In prayer clause the complainant has demanded an amount of Rs.1,38,752/-. The Details are as under:

 a)               Towards Processing fees                                       Rs 5,800/-

b).               Towards pre closure charges paid for                     Rs.5,952/-

personal loan closure.              

c)                 Interest on amount paid for loan closure

d)                Towards Mental agony                                          Rs 50,000/-

e)                Towards suffering Physical and Mental                 Rs.50,000/-

harassment by the officials

of opposite parties.

f)                 Towards legal Practioners and Professionals                    Rs 22,000/-

fees..

g).               Towards stationery and postage                                      Rs.  5,000/-

Total Rs 1.38,752/-

7.                Keeping in view of the above,  the Commission is of the opinion that the complaint is partly allowed.  Opposite parties are directed to refund the processing fee only.  There are no order as to costs.  Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order.  Copy of this order be given to the parties  concerned free of costs and file be consigned to record room.

Announced on: 21.11.2022                                  (Amit Arora)

                                                                                  President

                     District Consumer Disputes

           Redressal  Commission, Faridabad.

                                                (Mukesh Sharma)

                Member

          District Consumer Disputes

                                                                    Redressal Commission, Faridabad.

                                                (Indira Bhadana)

                Member

          District Consumer Disputes

                                                                    Redressal Commission, Faridabad.