(Per Shri S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member)
(1) This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 19/07/2006 in Consumer Complaint No.19/2006, Sou. Veena Ravindra Deshmukh Vs. Managing Director, I.C.I.C.I. Home Finance Co.Ltd. & anr., passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nashik (‘Forum’ in short).
(2) It is the grievance of the appellant/complainant that it approached ICICI Home Finance Co.Ltd. for obtaining a home loan to purchase a flat. It is further alleged that said loan for `2,70,000/- was sanctioned on 16/11/2004, but was not disbursed. Alleging deficiency in service on that count, the consumer complaint was filed. It is the contention of the opponents that the documents submitted in support of their loan, particularly, the title deed was not bearing proper stamp and therefore its legality being under question, the fact was brought to the notice of the complainant but she failed to rectify/explain the defect and therefore, loan was not disbursed. Upholding the contention of the complainant, the complaint was partly allowed and the financial institution was directed to give compensation of `2,000/- and `1,000/- as cost of the complaint and however not satisfied with the same, original complainant preferred this appeal.
(3) Both the parties remained absent, in spite of notice published on notice board and on internet and as well as by sending further intimation by way of abundant precaution by post on 19/12/2011. Hence, we prefer to consider this one of the old appeals on its own merit.
(4) In the instant case, the grievance is about not disbursing the sanctioned loan and the deficiency in service, in such circumstances could be alleged only against the financial institution and not against its employee/Sales Manager or its Managing Director. The Managing Director and Sales Manager of the opponents are certainly not service providers. They are independent, separate and distinct juristic person than the financial institution, namely, I.C.I.C.I. Home Finance Co.Ltd. in view of Sec. 2 (1)(m) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The financial institute is not a party. Therefore, on this count alone, the consumer complaint ought not to have entertained.
(5) However, we find that the forum partially allowed the complaint. The opponents did not file any appeal as revealed from the record. Under the circumstances, since the title documents of the complainant were found defective, for which the financial institution cannot be blamed and as such the financial institution cannot be blamed for non-disbursement of the loan. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the financial institution.
(6) However, since the forum is pleased to partly allow the claim and the opponent acquiesced to it we will not disturb the order but we do not find any reason to enhance the compensation awarded. For the reasons stated above, we hold that appeal is devoid of any substance and pass the following order:-
ORDER
Appeal stands dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced on 4th January, 2012.
