Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/133/2019

DHFL - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mojahid Mokim Ahmad - Opp.Party(s)

Er. Sandeep Suri

27 Oct 2020

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	:	133 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	03.07.2019
Date of Decision	:	27.10.2020

 

DHFL, SCO No.811-812, Second Floor, Sector 22-A, Chandigarh.   

……Appellant/Opposite Party

V e r s u s

 

Mojahid Mokim Ahmad, aged 40 years, resident of House/Shop No.263, Phase-II, AKS Colony, Bhabat, Zirakpur, Tehsil Derabassi, District Mohali. 

…..Respondent/complainant

 

BEFORE:             JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                             MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                             MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

Present through Video Conferencing:-    

                             None for the appellant.

                             Sh.Sanket Dhull, Advocate for the respondent.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                   The District Commission-II, U.T, Chandigarh (in short the District Commission) noted down the following facts of the respondent`s case:-

“The case of the complainant is that he applied for a loan of Rs.10,36,548/- from Opposite Party for purchase of a house through its agent Sukhwinder Singh in Aug., 2018, who assured about its approval within 10 days (Ann.C-1). It is averred that the complainant provided all the requisite documents to said agent along with 11 cheques duly signed as security for the loan.  The complainant also paid an amount of Rs.2900/- and Rs.5900/- to Opposite Party as processing fee. It is also averred that the complainant also submitted all the other documents after arranging at the cost of Rs.25,000/-.  It is stated that the Opposite Party before disbursing the loan, also issued one insurance policy in favour of the complainant by charging Rs.16,000/- from his account stating that it is mandatory for them to secure the loan amount.  Thereafter, the Opposite Party deducted the loan installment of Rs.8769/- each from the account of the complainant for the month of September, October & November, 2018 without his consent and when the complainant contacted the Opposite Party and told that no loan has been disbursed and still installments are being deducted from his account, the Opposite Party replied that loan has not been approved to him and he should approach some other company. (Ann.C-2 to C-4).  The complainant as such requested the Opposite Party to refund the amount so charged/deducted from the complainant, but the Opposite Party did not pay any heed.  It has been also alleged that due to non-disbursal of loan, the complainant could not get executed sale deed and suffered loss of Rs.2 lakh by way of forfeiture of earnest money. Hence, this complaint has been filed for refund of rs.1,00,000/- and compensation of Rs.10 lakh, alleging the above act & conduct of the Opposite Party as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice”.

2.           The appellant in its reply took various objections, which were noted down by the District Commission as under:-

“The Opposite Party has filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the Opposite Party sanctioned the loan to the complainant vide letter dated 24.8.2018, but in the said letter, nowhere it is stated that the amount will be approved within 10 days.  It is stated that the Opposite Party requested many times for the Original Sale Deed dated 8.9.2018 from the complainant, but the complainant did not provide the same as it was lost by him.  The Opposite Party also requested the complainant to provide the newspaper publication regarding loss of sale deed, but that too was not submitted. It is submitted that as per the Revised Letter of Offer, the loan amount of Rs.10,36,548/- which was to be repaid in 288 monthly EMI and the process fee of Rs.5900/- was also charged. It is stated that loan amount was disbursed in the system and cheque was prepared to the account of the complainant on 31.08.2018 and the first installment was deducted on 10.9.2018. It is submitted that the complainant had paid a total payment of Rs.32,864/- to the Opposite Party and Opposite Party is ready to refund the same and issued a cheque of Rs.32,864/- in favour of the complainant. It is also submitted that the said amount includes Initial PF, Balance PF, PEMI and EMI total amounting to Rs.32,061/- along with interest calculated at 8.95% and 9.20%, total amounting to Rs.803/-, being the rate of interest, which was to be charged against the loan account of the complainant.  It is further stated that the complainant at his own signed the sanction letter and requested to avail the insurance policy.  Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.”     

3.           The parties led evidence, in support of their case, before the District Commission.
4.           The District Commission after hearing the contesting parties allowed the consumer complaint, as under:

“12]      Keeping in view the gravity of mischief, malpractice and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party, the present complaint is allowed with following direction:-

 

1.  To refund an amount of Rs.51,411/- (which includes processing fee, loan installments and insurance policy amount) to the complainant;

 

2. To pay an amount of Rs.Two Lakh to the complainant as compensation for causing financial loss due to forfeiture of earnest money as well as for causing mental agony & harassment;

 

3. To pay litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

 

  This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Party within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which it shall be liable to pay additional compensatory cost of Rs.50,000/- apart from the above relief”

5.           Hence this appeal.
6.           We have heard the counsel for the respondent and carefully gone through the material available on the record, including the written arguments, submitted by the parties concerned. 
7.            The fact that the respondent had applied for a loan of Rs.10,36,548/- with the appellant for purchase of a house through its agent Sukhwinder Singh in Aug., 2018; that the respondent paid Rs.2900/- and Rs.5900/- to the appellant as processing fee towards sanction and disbursement of the said loan; issuance of insurance policy by the appellant in favour of the respondent by charging Rs.16,000/-; deduction of loan installment of Rs.8769/- each from the account of the respondent by the appellant, for the months of September, October & November, 2018 in the absence of disbursal of aforesaid loan amount, is not disputed.  It has been stated by the appellant in its appeal that loan amount was disbursed in the system and cheque was prepared for the account of the respondent on 31.08.2018 and the installments referred to above were also deducted from the account of the respondent. 

                   However, in the entire written statement filed by the appellant before the District Commission or in the appeal filed before this Commission, the appellant failed to put on record any convincing evidence, which entitled it to withhold the disbursement of the loan amount in favour of the respondent. Furthermore, it is very strange to note that the appellant started deducting EMIs from the account of the respondent, in the absence of disbursement of loan amount aforesaid. This act of the appellant amounts to deficiency in rendering service and adoption of unfair trade practice. Since the appellant failed to convince this Commission, as to why it failed to disburse the loan amount in favour of the respondent despite the fact that it was sanctioned in his favour, especially when it started deducting EMIs also, as such, it has no right to retain any amount received by it, from the respondent, with regard to the loan in  dispute. The respondent is definitely entitled to get back the amount of Rs.51,411/- (which includes processing fee, loan installments and insurance policy amount) from the appellant. The findings of the District Commission to this extent need to be upheld.

8.           Now coming to the award of Rs.2 lacs as compensation for causing financial loss to the respondent due to forfeiture of earnest money, referred to above, it may be stated here that the appellant has placed on record sale deed dated 07.01.2019 which clearly reveals that the respondent and his brother, jointly, has purchased the house in question, meaning thereby that the deal with regard to sale of the house in question has not become infructuous and also there was no forfeiture of the earnest money paid by the respondent to the seller of the said house. Under these circumstances, award of Rs.2 lacs as compensation for causing financial loss to the respondent for the alleged forfeiture, by the District Commission, needs to be set aside. 
9.           In view of above, this appeal is partly accepted. The order impugned is modified and the appellant is directed as under:-
   1. To refund an amount of Rs.51,411/- (which includes processing fee, loan installments and insurance policy amount) to the respondent.
   2. To pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation to the respondent for causing him mental agony and harassment by not disbursing the loan amount and on the other hand deducting EMIs from his account.
   3. To pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation to the respondent.
   4. This order be complied with by the appellant, within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of a copy thereof, failing which the aforesaid amounts shall carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of consumer complaint before the District Commission till realization.
10.           Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost.
11.           The related file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

27.10.2020

Sd/-

[JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

          MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

 (RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

1.