Date of Filing:19.08.2019

Date of Disposal:19.04.2023

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BENGALURU

1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027.

ORDER

SRI CHANDRASHEKAR.S.NOOLA, MEMBER

1. The complainant has filed this complaint in accordance with Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986. The complainant requests that this Commission order the opposite party to refund Rs.52,000/- plus 18% interest from 05.02.2016 till to the date of realization.

2. The following are the complaint's key facts: 

The complainant claims that in 2016, he approached the opposite party about obtaining a house loan for Rs.4 crores against the complainant's immovable property. Instead of Rs.4 crores, the opposite party approved only Rs.2.6 crores. The complainant claims that the opposite party provided a check for Rs.2,57,70,088/- dt. 09.02.2016. The complainant claims that he refrains from taking out the loan because the demand is for Rs.4 crores. As a result, the complainant approached the bank to return the Rs.52,000/- deducted by the opposite party from the complainant's savings account held with the opposite party on 05.02.2016. On the complainant's request for a refund of the amount paid, the opposite party refused, stating that "as per the business policy, the process fee or collected at the sanction stage, the administration fee or used to process the documents for the sanction of the home loan, the processing fee will not be refunded once the home loan is sanctioned." The complainant sent a legal notice, and the opposing party refused to reimburse, citing the facts stated above.

3. The opposite party states that the complainant approached them for a home loan balance transfer, i.e. the transfer of a loan account from one institution to another; in this case, the complainant sought to transfer the loan account from Hinduja Leyland finance to the bank account of the opposite party. In January 2016, the opposite party sanctioned Rs.2,60,00,000/- after evaluating the complainant's request, reviewing his financial documents, and determining his loan repayment capacity/eligibility. The complainant was aware of the same and assured the opposite party  that he would pay the EMIs on time. The loan was granted to the complainant depending upon a legal review of the property documents and a technical evaluation of the property. It contends that, since the entire process is a service provided by the opposite party, a processing fee and administrative fee need to be charged for processing the loan application to cover the cost of legal, technical, and other sanctions required for sanctioning as well as application. This fee is non-refundable, as stated in the letter of approval issued to the complainant, which he also signed. The complainant did not withdraw the disbursement from his loan account and requested that the account be closed. Since the opposite party has provided all necessary services and processed the loan, the issue of a refund does not arise. At the time of disbursement, registration, PF, and administrative charges in the amount of Rs.1,14,500/- were also levied in accordance with the terms and conditions of the loan and usual banking norms. The complainant made a payment of Rs.1,15,073/- against these charges on 30.01.2016; However, the payment was returned due to insufficient funds, and Rs.229/- was charged to the complainant's loan account. The complainant's pre-EMI was due for the month of February 2016, and pre-EMI was automatically debited for the month of February 2016 on 05.02.2016 in the amount of Rs.52,000/-. On the basis of the request received on 05.02.2016, the loan of the complainant was cancelled and the Pre EMI of  Rs.52,000/- was adjusted with the outstanding due of Rs.1,15,302/- and the balance of Rs.63,302/- towards the loan account was waived, as indicated by the account statement.

4. The points that arise for our consideration are;

1. Whether the Complainant prove that there is deficiency of service on the part of the OPs as alleged in the complaint and thereby prove that he is entitle for the relief sought?
2. What order?

5. The findings on the above points are as under:

Point No.1               :       Negative

Point No.2               :       As per final order

REASONS

6. POINT NO.1:- The complainant approaches the defendant for a housing loan for the amount of Rs 4 crores. The other party approves a loan of Rs.2.6 crores, and the cheque issued was for Rs.2,57,70,088/-. The complainant declined the loan and wrote to the bank requesting cancellation of the loan and a refund of the Rs.52,000/- that had already been debited from the complainant's bank account. The opposite party, denying the complainant's claims, states that the loan amount was approved based on the evaluation of the complainant's documents and capacity for repayment. The opposite party charged Rs.1,14,500/- for the loan application procedure, which included registration, PF, and administrative fees. The opposite party waived the transaction fee and only charged Rs.52,000/- towards pre-EMI fees. Upon examining the submitted documents, this commission determined that neither the complainant nor the respondent presented a loan agreement. The loan was sanctioned/disbursed on January 30, 2016, whereas the complainant's most recent correspondence to refund the processing fee charged by the bank for loan sanction was sent on March 15, 2016, according to the documents provided by the complainant. Following this, there were numerous email exchanges regarding the refund of the pre-EMI amount, but the date of loan disbursement to the complainant had passed by more than one month.

7. This commission cannot reach a decision due to absence of a loan agreement, insufficient information, and inadequate documentation. In view of the aforementioned, we believe that the case deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Point No.1 we answer in Negative.

8. POINT NO.2:- In the result, we passed the following:

ORDER

1. The complaint filed by the Complainant U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is hereby dismissed. No costs.
2. Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties. 

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Commission on 19^th April 2023)

(RAMACHANDRA M.S.)

PRESIDENT

(NANDINI H KUMBHAR)             (CHANDRASHEKAR S.NOOLA)       

            MEMBER                                        MEMBER

Witness examined on behalf of the complainant by

way of affidavit:

G.Sanketh-who being the complainant

Documents produced by the complainant:

Witness examined on behalf of the OP by way of affidavit: Sri Rahul Srivastava

Documents produced by the OP:

(RAMACHANDRA M.S.)

PRESIDENT

(NANDINI H KUMBHAR)          (CHANDRASHEKAR S.NOOLA)

         MEMBER                                     MEMBER

SKA*