Order No. 18 dt. 29/05/2019
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant applied for a loan amount of Rs.18,00,000/- before the o.p. no.2 vide application no. 2103005310 on 05/05/2014 in order to purchase a flat from o.p. – developer i.e. o.p. no.3 and o.p. no.2 sanctioned the said loan amount to the complainant. Subsequently the complainant requested to o.p. no.2 to transit the requisite amount to the o.p. no.3 to pay the installments but the complainant was surprised to see the delay charge of Rs.15,203/- was imposed by o.p. no.3 for non-payment of installment within time. It is stated in the petition of complaint that for payment of 2nd installment another sum of Rs.15,719/- was deducted for delay of payment and this time the complainant came to know that the cheque was misplaced by o.p. no.2 The complainant informed the said matter to the Regional Manager of o.p. – LIC vide application dated 15/04/2016 and 26/05/2016. It is further stated that the Regional Manager stated vide Ref. No. LICHFL/Kol-RM/21030005027 dated 26/07/2016 that the said cheque was misplaced by their representative due to that reason payment of installment has been delayed. Being aggrieved the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. to pay Rs.30,922/- deducted by the developer along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.
O.ps have contested this case by filing w/v, stating that the disbursement of loan was made on 16/07/2014 and after receiving the consent of the complainant they did the same as such they have no deficiency on their part as regard to the delay of 1st installment. O.p. no.2 has further stated that it is the duty of the borrower to collect the cheque and handover the same to the developer, but the complainant did not do the same and subsequently requested them to send the cheque to the developer through their representative. On request of the complainant o.p. no.2 has sent the cheque for payment of 2nd installment which was lost in-transit and it took time to issue a fresh cheque after making stop payment of the lost cheque and as such they have no deficiency in providing serviced. Accordingly, o.ps have prayed for dismissal of the case.
Both parties adduced evidence in affidavit.
Points for determination
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps.?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons
Both points are taken up together for comprehensive discussion and decision.
Complainant entered into an agreement for sale with the o.p. no.3 in respect of a flat with the financial assistance of o.p. no.2 obtaining housing loan of Rs.18,00,000/- under certain terms and conditions.
On perusal of the documents on record it appears that the copy of agreement for sale and loan agreement support such averment of the complainant. It appears from the statement of the complainant that as per terms of the loan agreement the o.p. no.2 was entrusted to pay the agreed amount for installment to the developer as per agreed mode of payment. It appears from the statement of the complainant that the disputes cropped up regarding delayed payment of installment with developer by the o.p. no.2 owing to which the o.p. no.3 deducted an amount of Rs.30,922/- for two installment i.e. Rs.15,203/- and Rs.15,719/-. In their written version o.p. nos. 1 and 2 have stated that disbursement of the loan was made on 16/07/2014 immediately after receiving of consent of the complainant regarding the 1st installment and regarding 2nd installment on receiving of the demand letter of the developer they prepared the cheque which was lost in transit.
It appears from the documents on record that the date of 1st installment was scheduled on 2nd May,2014 and the consent of payment was submitted to the o.p. no.2 on 16/07/2014. It was stated by the complainant that the said loan was sanctioned vide no. 2103005310 on 05/05/2014. Evidently the complainant authorized the o.p. no.2 to make the payment towards the consideration of the flat after expiry of the date of payment. However, regarding payment of 2nd installment, it appears that o.p. no.2 has admitted that the cheque was issued by them towards payment of 2nd installment have lost on transit and they had issued another cheque which took a considerable spell of time and as such caused delay in payment. O.p. no.2 although have stated that they are not liable for causing delay of payment but it is evident that delay in making payment of 2nd installment was caused due to their mismanagement and for which the complainant can not suffer at all.
In the light of the discussion made hereinabove it is clear that the o.p. no.2 is solely responsible for causing delay in making payment towards 2nd installment which is an example for deficiency in service on the part of the o.p.-LICHFL.
In such view of matter we are of opinion that the o.p. nos. 1 and 2 are liable to make good for the loss caused by the deduction of Rs.15,719/- by the o.p. no.3.
Further such deficiency on the part of the o.p. LICHFL has prompted the complainant to file the instant case for which the o.p. no. 1 and 2 are liable to pay the cost of litigation.
All points are disposed of accordingly.
In the result the complaint case succeeds in part.
Hence, it is,
ordered
that the CC No. 91/2018 is allowed in part against the o.p. nos. 1 and 2 with cost and is dismissed against o.p. no.3 without cost.
O.p. no.2 is directed to pay Rs.15,719/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Seven Hundred and Nineteen) only to the complainant within one month from this date of order. O. p. nos. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) only towards litigation cost to the complainant failing which an interest @ 8% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
