JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA, MEMBER

         This Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner No. 1/ Opposite Party No.1 challenging the impugned Order dated 24.04.2017 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai in RBT/A/15/874. Vide such Order, the State Commission dismissed the Appeal while upholding the order dated 22.08.2014 passed by the District Consumer Complaint Redressal Forum, Thane in Consumer Complaint No. 331/2008.

2.      The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant was in need of a house and the Opposite Party No. 3 was willing to sell his Flat No. 202, New Neel Angar Housing Society, Nallasopara having an area of 414 sq. ft. Consequently, an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- was decided as the consideration for the flat and a registered agreement was executed on 12.03.2007. At the time of entering into the Agreement, the Complainant paid Rs.87,000/- to Opposite Party No.3 and the balance Rs.3,13,000/- was to be paid by acquiring a loan from the bank, which was agreed by both the above stated parties.

3.      It was averred by the Complainant that he had approached Opposite Party No. 1 before execution and registration of the Agreement, with the available documents, to acquire a loan of Rs.3,13,000/- and the Opposite Party No. 1 informed the Complainant that the flat was required to be mortgaged and for that purpose, the Agreement should be registered, only after which the loan amount could be disbursed. On the basis of the available documents submitted by the Complainant, a pre Sanction Letter dated 08.02.2007 was issued to the Complainant. Based on the pre Sanction Letter, the Complainant executed the Agreement for sale, and paid the margin amount of Rs.87,000/- to the Opposite Party. It is further submitted that the Opposite Party no.1 instructed the Complainant to approach Opposite Party No.2 for further processing of the loan. The Complainant consequently submitted the Application form along with all the documents to the Opposite Party No.2,  and thereafter on scrutiny of all the documents, the loan was sanctioned vide Approval Letter dated 12.04.2007. It was further averred that the Complainant was informed that the amount shall be disbursed in the name of Opposite Party No. 3. It was further claimed that the Complainant had also paid the processing fees and other necessary expenses and amount required for mortgage of flat to the Opposite Party No.2.

4.      Further, the case of Complainant was that he approached Opposite Party No.4 for transfer of flat in his favour of and accordingly the Opposite Party No. 4 issued a No-objection Certificate to him and transferred the share certificate in his favour, which was also further submitted to Opposite Party No. 2. However, even after compliance of entire process for disbursement of loan amount, the Opposite Party No. 2 had avoided and failed to issue the cheque of disbursed loan till the date of Complaint. On enquiry, it was informed to the Complainant that his file was missing, and the loan would be disbursed as soon as the file is found. Hence, the Complaint was filed by the Complainant before the District Forum claiming the disbursed loan amount and other ancillary reliefs.     

 5.     The Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3 appeared before the District Forum and resisted the Complaint by denying the material allegations made therein and thereby denying deficiency in service on their part. It was contended by the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 that the No Objection Certificate of the Society, produced by the Complainant, was false and fabricated as it did not bear signatures of the President/ Secretary of the Society which was informed to them by the Opposite Party No. 4. It was also claimed that the Opposite Party No.3 was not authorized to execute the Agreement for sale in respect of the flat. Hence, it was contended that the title of flat was not clear and the loan could not be given to the Complainant.

6.      The Opposite Party No. 3 had separately contended that the complaint against him is not lawful and he has been involved in the Complaint without any reason. The Complaint was proceeded ex parte against the Opposite Party No.4.

7.      The Ld. District Forum vide its Order dated 22.08.2014 observed inter alia-

“10.   Reasoning:

(A)    When the complaint has been perused minutely, all the demands are seen to have been made against the Opponent No. 1 and 2 only.  The Complainant had made an application to the Opponent No. 1 and Opponent No. 1 on the basis of the documents gave letter on 08.02.2007 with the content that the loan could be arranged for an amount of Rs. 3,13,000/- and on the basis of that letter, the complainant had agreed to purchase the flat by registered agreement on 12.03.2007 with the Opponent No. 3.  Thereafter, for obtaining the housing loan along with the necessary documents, the said case was sent to Opponent No. 2 for further action.  The Opponent No. 2 also, by scrutinizing the available documents, on 12.04.2007 gave a letter to the Complainant regarding sanctioning the loan. Regarding this matter, the Opponent No.1 and 2 did not raise any dispute. By completing all the procedure necessary for the purpose of complainant’s loan, all the necessary expense were paid, regarding which the opponent had no dispute.

(B)    The point of dispute arises only that as per the say of the complainant, the loan file of the complainant was misplaced by the Opponent No. 1 and delayed the sanction of loan.  And as per the statement of the opponent No. 1 and 2 as there was discrepancies in the documents of the complainant and as there was faults in the ownership rights of the flat, the loan could not be sanctioned to the complainant or the amount has not been paid, as has been mentioned.

(C )   When the sequence of loan process is seen, on 08.02.2007, the first letter of provisional loan approval was given to the complainant.  Thereafter, on 12.03.2007 the registered agreement was executed and thereafter, the Opponent No. 1 on 12.04.2007 by giving the loan approval letter, the loan was approved as is seen.  That is from 08.02.2007 to 12.04.2007, during these two months, by suitable scrutiny of the documents, by taking search report, by ascertaining the ownership rights, and after ensuring all other necessary points the bank was expected to give the loan sanction letter. But in the said case, after completing all the processes, after sanction of the loan, the bank has expressed question marks and doubts regarding the transaction and documents.

          The opponent No. 1 and 2 after complying with all the processes, inquiring with the opponent No. 4 society about the no objection certificate, and later giving in writing about not having the signature of the Chairman of the Society on the Bank’s Letterhead, to remain absent in the case before the Forum, taking search report after complaint is filed, taking certificate regarding ownership, all these facts raise doubt in the bank’s working system.

(D)    The Opponent bank is not seen to have made any letter correspondence with the Complainant for having objection regarding the transaction of the complainant and regarding the documents and it is also not seen that till the complaint is filed, no intimation or letter for cancellation of loan was given to the Complainant.  Therefore, carelessness and negligence has been shown by the opponent bank in the housing loan case of the complainant.

          In contract to this, by completing all the legal aspects by the complainant, by registering the agreement, all the expenses of the opponent having been paid, thereafter even after obtaining the loan sanction letter, the opponent bank the Opponent No. 3 bank does not pay the amount for the flat in the name of the seller.  Therefore, it is clear that the opponent No. 1 and 2 having encroached upon the legal rights of the complainant and alternately the complainant has been deprived from the basic rights of the consumer from the time the possession of the house has been taken over, upto the period of acquiring membership of the housing society and usring the house.  Therefore, it has come to the conclusion of the Forum that the Opponent No.1 and 2 bank has defaulted in providing facility in housing loan to the Complainant

8.      Aggrieved by the above Order, the Appeal No. RBT/A/15/874 was filed by Petitioners/ Opposite Party No.1 & 2 (Appellants) against all the remaining parties before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai.

9.  Ld. State Commission vide the impugned Order dated 24.04.2017 dismissed the Appeal and upheld the order of the District Forum while observing inter alia-

“(9)………………Under such circumstances, the objection for not giving loan to the complainant by Opposite Party No.1 and 2 was not proper. Irrespective of that the Ld. District Forum had directed the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 to reexamine the application of complainant for getting loan for purchase of that flat and informed about status of that application to him within 30 days from passing of order.  On perusal of order passed by the Ld. District Forum, it has become clear that the Ld. District Forum had given discretion to the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 to consider whether loan can be given to the complainant in respect of purchase of that flat.  However, Ld. District Forum had only directed the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 to inform decision taken by them to the complainant within 30 days from the passing of order.  Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case we are of opinion that the order passed by the Ld. District Forum appears to be legal and correct and needs no interference.

(10)   It appears that the Ld. Advocate appearing for the Appellant has mainly contested the appeal on the ground that under  such circumstances Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 are not required to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant.  However, we are of the opinion that contention of the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 in this respect cannot be accepted.  We are of the opinion that as and when Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 had come to know that title of Opposite Party No.3 is not clear and letter of transfer of flat given to them by the complainant is false and fabricated it was incumbent on Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 to inform this fact to the complainant.  However, complainant was required to wait for same and was required to file this complaint against Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2.  It appears that on the contrary Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 had not responded to the complainant on the pretext that house loan file of complainant is missing.  Under such circumstances, we are of the opinion that there was deficiency in service given by the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 to the complainant and hence complainant is entitled to get compensation from Opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 alongwith costs of litigation. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that order passed by the Ld. District Forum is legal and correct. 

10.    Hence, the present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioners/ Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 against the above mentioned impugned Order of the Ld. State Commission on the grounds that:

1. That the State Commission failed to exercise its jurisdiction in the wake of admitted fact of forgery and fabrication;
2. That the State Commission failed to appreciate that the credit facilities were never committed for grant even if terms and conditions were not complied with;
3. That the permission from society where the flat was located was found to be incompetent;
4. That the State Commission failed to appreciate that the Respondent no.1 gained from his own wrongs and the onus of completion of terms conditions always remained on Respondent No.1;
5. That the State Commission failed to appreciate that as soon as forgery was discovered, the process of grant of credit facility had to discontinue;
6. That admittedly the terms and conditions were never complied with; 
7. That the Respondent No.1 failed to substantiate any loss caused to him and the document produced by the Respondent No.1 was challenged by its very own author i.e. Respondent No.3;
8. That the Respondent No.1 could never place on record any evidence in opposition either to denial dated 24.04.2007 or even report dated 20.11.2008.                                                                                                                                                                                11.    Hence, the present Revision Petition has been preferred by the Petitioners against the impugned order dated 24.04.2017.   12.    Heard Ld. Counsels for the Parties.  Perused the material available on record.

9. 13.    As has been seen from the orders passed by both the Ld. Fora below, they had determined that the Petitioner Bank was deficient in providing service on account of its failure to release the loan amount after having issued the Sanction Letter.  The defence raised by the Opposite Parties in the complaint was that No Objection Certificate of the Society purportedly produced by the Complainant was found to be false/fabricated and did not bear the signature of the President/Society of the Society as informed by the Opposite Party No. 4, and that the Opposite Party No. 3 was not authorised to execute the Agreement for Sale in respect of the flat.  Irrespective of the question whether or not the No Objection Certificate was actually fabricated, it was the duty of the Bank/Opposite Party No. 1 to inform the Complainant promptly that the same was not acceptable in view of the information purportedly gathered from the Opposite Party No. 4.  But the same was not done which ex facie was a deficiency in service on the part of the Bank. Had the Complainant been informed about this fact, he could have either rebutted the same, or resorted to any other method to secure a genuine Certificate, if the same delivered to him was found to be false, fabricated or unauthorised.  But the Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 in Para 12 of their reply filed in the District Forum, simply denied in a bald fashion that “they have not intimated to the Complainant about the delay in disbursement of the housing loan”.  Elsewhere they merely stated that they had “orally informed” to the Complainant about the delay in disbursement of the loan since the title of the said property was not clear and marketable.  The plea regarding such oral information having been conveyed was specifically denied by the Complainant.  Prior to filing of the complaint, the Complainant had also issued two Legal Notices dated 27.12.2008 and 19.3.2008 calling upon the Opposite Parties to trace out the original file and disburse the loan at the earliest. But none of those Legal Notices were replied to till the Complaint was filed nearly 5-6 months later on 8.8.2008.  No copy of any letter intimating the Complainant about the infirmity or illegality of the No Objection Certificate was placed on record by the Opposite Parties to support their claim, as admittedly no such letter was actually issued to the Complainant.

   14.    In such circumstances, both the Ld. Fora below were justified in holding that the Opposite Parties/Bank had been deficient in providing the requisite service to the Complainant in respect of his loan for which the Sanction Letter had already been issued.

   15.    We, therefore, find no justification to interfere with the concurrent decisions of both the Ld. Fora below.

   16.    The Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.

   17.    Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off.