Date of Filing:03/03/2021 Date of Order:05/04/2022 BEFORE THE BANGALORE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE - 27. Dated:05th DAY OF APRIL 2022 PRESENT SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS, B.Sc., LL.B. Rtd. Prl. District & Sessions Judge And PRESIDENT SRI. Y.S. THAMMANNA, B.Sc, LL.B., MEMBER SMT.SHARAVATHI S.M, B.A, LL.B., MEMBER COMPLAINT NO.242/2021 COMPLAINANT : | | SRI HEMANATH CHAKKA Age: 41 years R/at No.08, Plot No.33/34/35, RKS Mansion, 21st Cross, Ejipura, Bengaluru 560 047. Mob: 9880202920 (Complainant – In person) | |
Vs OPPOSITE PARTIES: | 1 | MANAGER, HDFC Ltd., (Marathahalli Branch) 1st Floor, No.05, Doddenakundi Village, Maarathahalli – Sarjapura Krishnarajapura, Bengaluru 560 037. | | | 2 | Manager, PIRAMAL CAPITAL AND HOUSING FINANCE LTD., (Formerly Piramal Housing Fin.Ltd.) 4th Floor, Piramal Tower, Penssula Corporate Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013. (OP-1 : exparte) ( Sri Mohan Malge, Adv. for OP-2) |
|
ORDER
SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS. PRESIDENT
1. This is the Complaint filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Parties (herein referred to as OPs) under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 for the deficiency in service against OP-1 in not providing him the subsidy available under PMAY scheme and seeking compensation of Rs.2,30,000/- from OP-1 and to waive interest charges of Rs.16,100/- at the rate of 7% and compensate him for sufferance by ordering OP to pay Rs.50,000/- towards the same and for such other reliefs as the Hon’ble District Commission deems fit.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that; complainant obtained housing loan from Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd on 09.10.2019, one Suman of OP-1 promised to process PMAY application and collected the documents. The email and whatsapp produced to show that the said documents were given to OP-1 he was following up with HDFC ltd. regarding the process of PMAY application. During June/July 2020 OP-1 rejected the application stating that his application for PMAY cannot be considered as it is a loan transferred from Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited and only the financial institution can process the application for subsidy under the scheme. The said Suman lied and misled him. Due to which he has suffered loss to the extent of Rs.2,30,000/- and hence there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed the commission to allow the complaint.
3. Earlier this complaint was filed only against HDFC ltd whereas afterwards Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd., is also made as 2nd OP i.e. OP-2. After the service of notice OP-1 remained absent and placed exparte.
4. After service of notice sent to OP-2, it appeared and filed the version contending that the complaint is not maintainable against it and no allegation is made and no relief claimed in the complaint and there is no valid cause of action against it. A complaint was lodged against the bank before Ramamurthy Nagar PS and same is pending investigation.
5. It is further contended that the complainant availed a loan from it and afterwards the same was got transferred during 09.10.2019 to OP-1 and the issue is with OP-1 only and prayed the Commission to dismiss the complaint.
6. In order to prove the case, Complainant filed his affidavit evidence and produced documents. Arguments Heard. The following points arise for our consideration:-
1) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?
7. Our answers to the above points are:-
POINT NO.1& 2 : IN THE NEGATIVE.
For the following.
REASONS
POINT No.1 & 2:-
8. On perusing the complaint, version, documents, evidence filed by both parties, it becomes clear that, complainant borrowed housing loan from OP-2 and later got it transferred to OPs to meet his own purpose.
9. The specific case of the complainant is that, he is eligible to interest rebate under PMAY CLSS Scheme, whereas his application was not processed and rejected by OP-1 and hence there is deficiency in service as the officials of OP-1 assured him that he will be eligible for the interest subsidy under the said scheme. OP-2 has clarified to the complainant that under the guidelines issued by Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Government of India and its notification as
“Your housing loan bearing File No.645201425 is not eligible for claiming subsidy benefits under CLSS-PMAY Scheme.
Further, we would like to draw your kind attention to our earlier responses also on the same wherein we have confirmed that we have not received your application for claiming subsidy benefits under CLSS-PMAY Scheme, hence there is no question of delay in processing from our end.
We have also been informed, that your earlier applications for claiming subsidy benefits under CLSS-PMAY Scheme through Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited for the same property was not successful.
For any assistance you may write to us on
Assuring you of our best services.”
10. Accordingly, Complainant is not entitle to claim interest subsidy and further his application submitted by the Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd., in respect of the said loan was not successful. Even it isthe contention of OP-2 that since the complainant got the loan transferred OP-1, as per the guidelines, after the transfer of the loan from one bank to another bank, OP-2 cannot process the application and as per the guidelines and policy, the same cannot be entertained by OP-1.
11. When there is a circular by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development in respect of the granting interest rebate under CLSS PMAY scheme, OP-1 and 2 cannot be held responsible for the in eligibility of the complainant. Complainant ought to have enquired before getting the loan transferred from OP-2 to OP-1’s institutions regarding the eligibility criteria under the said scheme. In view of this we are of the opinion that no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is made out by OP-1 and 2. Hence we answer POINT NO.1 AND 2 IN THE NEGATIVE and pass the following:
ORDER
- The complaint is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.
- Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.
Note: You are hereby directed to take back the extra copies of the Complaints/version, documents and records filed by you within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Commission on this day the 05th day of APRIL 2022)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
ANNEXURES
- Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:
CW-1 | Sri. Hemanath Chakka – Complainant |
Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:
Ex P1: Copy of the RBI guidelines.
Ex P2: Copy of the article in Economic Times
Ex. P3: Copy of the newspaper publication.
Ex P4: Copy of the grievances given by complainant to National Housing bank.
Ex P5: Copy of email correspondences.
Ex P6: Copy of the letter written by OP-2 dt: 16.06.2020.
Ex P7: Copy of whatsapp screenshot
2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:
RW-1: - Nil-
Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s
- Nil-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
RAK*
