Punjab

StateCommission

FA/868/2014

LIC Housing Finance Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jimmy Sachdeva - Opp.Party(s)

Rahul Rampal

25 Apr 2016

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

 

                       First Appeal No.868 of 2014

 

                                                Date of Institution: 30.06.2014

                                                Date of Decision:  25.04.2016

 

LIC Housing Finance Limited, SCO 18, Ist Floor, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through its Authorize Officer/Manager.

 

 

                                                                Appellant/Opposite party no.1

 

                             Versus

 

1.      Jimmy Sachdev son of Parshotam Sachdeva, resident of Flat          No.27, Sector 7, Guru Gian Vihar, Ludhiana.

 

 

                                                          Respondent no.1/Complainant

 

 

2.      Ashok Sharma, Agent SCO No.82, RK Complex, Grain Market,        back side Arora Palace, Gill Road, Ludhiana.

 

 

                                                  Respondent no.2/Opposite party no.2

 

 

First Appeal against order dated 28.04.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,  Ludhiana.

 

Quorum:-

 

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

            Shri.H.S.Guram, Member

 

Present:-

 

          For the appellant                : Sh.Rahul Rampal, Advocate  

          For the respondent no.1   : Ex-parte

          For the respondent no.2   : Dismissed on 01.12.2015 for want       of prosecution.

          . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

         J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

         

          Aggrieved by order dated 28.04.2014 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Ludhiana (in short, the District Forum), the appellant of this appeal (the opposite party no.1 in the complaint) has directed this appeal against the respondent no.1 of this appeal (the complainant in the complaint) and respondent no.2 (the opposite party no.2 in the complaint). The District Forum, accepted the complaint of the complainant by directing the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.13,483/- and Rs.1103/- to complainant, besides Rs.2000/- as composite compensation. The instant appeal has been preferred against the same by the opposite party no.1 now appellant in this appeal.

2.      The complainant has filed the complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OP on the averments that he applied for housing loan of Rs.13,00,000/- from OP No.1/LIC Housing Finance Ltd through the authorized agent Sh. Ashok Kumar Sharma/OP No.2 to purchase the property and the date fixed for registration of sale deed was 30.04.2012. The complainant was assured to disburse the loan before date of registration i.e. 30.04.2012. OP No.2 took the amount of Rs.20,000/- from the complainant in the name of documentation and verification charges without any receipt. The complainant also paid Rs.1103/- by way of cheque no.854624 encashed on 19.03.2012 by OP No.1 against file logging charges. The complainant received sanction letter dated 19.03.2012, in which it was clearly stated that housing loan amounting to Rs.13 lac applied by complainant has been approved. OPs started to put off the matter on one pretext or the other. When few days were left for registration of sale deed, the officials of OP No.1 as well as OP No.2 suggested the complainant to borrow the requisite amount of Rs.13 lac from the market or from somewhere else. The complainant asked the OP to refund the amount received from him, but OP has not refunded the amount to complainant. The complainant has, thus, filed the complaint directing the OP to refund the interest @ 12% on loan amount of Rs.13 lac, which complainant borrowed for intermediate period of four months before getting home loan disbursement from other institution. The complainant has prayed for Rs.1 lac as compensation for mental harassment.

3.      Upon notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant raising preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable. The complainant is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the complaint. The complaint is bad for non joinder and mis joinder of necessary parties. The District Forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain this complaint. The complainant has no locus stand to file the complaint. The complaint was contested by OP no.1 even on merits. It was denied by OP no.1 that it promised the complainant to get loan disbursed before 30.04.2012. It was not admitted that OP No.2 had taken a sum of Rs.20,000/- from the complainant in the name of documentation and verification charges. It was denied that complainant received a sanction letter dated 19.03.2012 stating that housing loan amount of Rs.13 lac applied by complainant had been approved. OP No.1 came to know that property, which complainant, Smt. Sudesh Rani and Sh. Parshotam Sachdeva wanted to purchase was already mortgaged with other bank. Loan amount could not be disbursed without discussing the true facts. The complainant, Smt. Sudesh Rani and Sh. Parshotam Sachdev deposited the amount of Rs.13483/- as upfront fee. OP no.1 also issued the receipts in favour of the complainant and Smt. Sudesh Rani and Sh. Parshotam Sachdeva and that amount was not refundable and it was also so mentioned in the receipt. The OP no.1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint by denying unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on its part.

4.      OP No.2 filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant. It was averred that Smt. Sudesh Rani and Sh. Parshotam Sachdeva approached the office of OP and applied for a loan for purchasing the House no.20, Sector 7 Ludhiana stating that it was free from all bars and encumbrances. The complainant, Smt. Sudesh Rani and Sh. Parshotam Sachdeva further promised that original sale deed would be handed over to OP at the time when sale deed would be registered in favour of the complainant and when loan would be disbursed. The complainant, Smt. Sudesh Rani and Sh Parshotam Sachdeva had agreed to mortgage property in favour of OP no.1 as primary security by deposit of original sale deed of the said property after registration. The loan was sanctioned to the complainant and Smt. Sudesh Rani and Sh. Parshotam Sachdeva for purchasing of the house in all their names and it was not for purpose of disbursement after the registration of sale deed.  OP no.2 controverted the averments of the complainant on the same grounds on which OP no.1 contested the same and OP no.2 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.      The complainant tendered in evidence, his affidavit Ex.C-A along with copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-16. As against it; OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Arvind Kaur Area Manager LIC Housing Finance Ltd Ex.R-A, affidavit of Ashok Kumar Ex.R-B, copy of document Ex.R-1. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Ludhiana accepted the complaint of the complainant by virtue of order dated 28.04.2014. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Ludhiana dated 28.04.2014, OP no.1 the present appellant, carried this appeal against the same.

6.      We have heard learned counsel for appellant as respondent no.1 is exparte and appeal has been dismissed against OP No.2 for want of prosecution on 01.12.2015.

7.      We have examined the pleadings of the parties and evidence on the record. Affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-A is on the record in support of his averments. He categorically stated that he deposited Rs.1103/- by way of cheque no.854624, which was encashed by OP no.1 on 19.03.2012 against file logging charges. He further stated that the amount of Rs.20,000/- was taken by OP no.2 for documentation and verification charges without issuing any receipt. He further stated that he received sanction letter dated 19.03.2012, in which it was clearly stated that housing loan amounting to Rs.13 lac applied by complainant has been approved, but OP started putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. When few days were left for registration of sale deed, the officials of OP No.1, as well as, OP No.2 suggested the complainant to borrow the requisite amount of Rs.13 lac from the market or somewhere else. He further stated that amount deposited by him with OP no.1 has not been refunded to him. Ex.C-1 is application for loan of Rs.13 lac by the complainant with OP no.1. Ex.C-2 is letter of complainant regarding return of documents i.e. original registration document, fard and deposited money with OPs. Ex.C-3 is email sent by complainant to OPs. Ex.C-4 is letter addressed by complainant to OPs. Ex.C-5 is postal receipt. Ex.C-6 is legal notice sent by the complainant to OPs. Ex.C-7 and Ex.C-8 are postal receipts. Ex.C-9 is account statement. Ex.C-10 is execution of sale deed in favour of Sh. Parshotam Sachdeva  s/o Sh.Dayal Das Sachdeva by Baldev Singh s/o Sh.Gurdip Singh of Ludhiana. Ex.C-11 is copy of jamabandi for the year 2008-09. Home loan details of payment is Ex.C-13 to Ex.C-15 on the record in this regard.

8.      To refute this evidence, OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Arvind Kaur Area Manager LIC Housing Finance Ltd Ludhiana Ex.R-A. She stated in her affidavit that copy of loan offer letter/sanction letter, disbursement schedule and terms and conditions of loan were handed over to the complainant. All the documents were filled in and thereafter the contents of the same were read over and explained to the complainant and they signed the same after understanding the contents of the same. After sanction of the loan amount, the OP no.1 came to know that property was already mortgaged with other Bank and hence it could not be remortgaged with OP no.1. The loan amount could not be disbursed due to encumbrances on the property, which was purchased by the complainant. It was further stated that OP no.1 received amount of Rs.1103/- and Rs.13483/- as processing fee/upfront fee and issued receipt in favour of the complainant and Smt. Sudesh Rani and Parshotam Sachdeva, which are not refundable, as recorded in the receipt Ex.R-1. The receipt Ex.R-1 has also been examined by us. Affidavit of Ashok Sharma Ex.R-B is also on the record.

9.      From appraisal of above-referred evidence on the record, we find that OPs declined to disburse the loan amount on the ground that property purchased by the complainant was already encumbered. No due certificate was issued by the Bank with which the property was mortgaged, but it was not given any weightage by the OPs for considering that OPs should have disbursed the loan. OPs charged Rs.1103/- and Rs.13,483/- as processing fee from the complainant, by not considering copy of jamabandi for the year 2008-09 Ex.C-11 wherein property was not encumbered anywhere. Even "No Due Certificate" issued by previous Bank has been ignored by the OPs. Consequently, we are of this view that District Forum rightly observed that nothing was verified by OPs in this case nor did they rely upon the above "No due Certificate". The District Forum rightly observed that OPs are not entitled to recover the amount deposited by the complainant with them, as processing fee. The loan was sanctioned on 19.03.2012. OPs alleged that they received e-mail from complainant on 07.06.2012. There is no question of disbursement of loan after registration of sale deed because sale deed, was executed in favour of complainant on 07.06.2012. The alleged email relied upon by OPs sent by complainant is subsequent to the execution of the sale deed. Consequently, District Forum rightly concluded that OPs should have relied upon No Due Certificate and proceeded further to remit the loan amount at the time of registration of the sale deed, but OPs failed to do so. OPs charged Rs.13,483/- and Rs.1103/- as processing fee despite the fact that it was imperative on them to verify the revenue record. Nothing was verified by OPs nor they relied upon No Due Certificate as issued by previous Bank. District Forum rightly held that OPs are liable to refund the amount of Rs.1103/- and Rs.13,483/- to complainant despite the fact that this amount is recorded as "not refundable" in the receipt. The order of the District Forum is, thus, sustainable in the eyes of law and we find no ground to interfere with the same under challenge in this appeal.  

10.    As a result of our above discussion, we, thus, affirm the order of the District Forum Ludhiana dated 28.04.2014 under challenge in this case. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the appellant/opposite party no.1 is ordered to be dismissed.

11.    The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.9,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal and Rs.953/-. Both these amounts with interest, if any, accrued thereon, be refunded by the registry to the complainant by way of crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. Remaining amount, if any, shall be paid to complainant by the appellants as per order of District Forum within 45 days from receipt of the copy of this order

12.    Arguments in this appeal were heard on 21.04.2016 and the order was reserved. Copies of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

13.    The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                          PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                       

                                                         

                                                                           (H.S GURAM)

                                                                              MEMBER

 

April 25, 2016                                                             

(ravi)