| ORDER | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA C.C. No. 166 of 15-05-2015 Decided on : 22-12-2015 Suraj Bahadur, Opp # 29132, Street No. 2, Janta Nagar, Bathinda. …...Complainant Versus Manager/Managing Director, M/s. DHFL, Warden House, 2nd Floor, Sir P M Road, Fort, Mumbai 400 001. Manager, M/s. DHFL, SCO 123, 2nd Floor, Rose Garden Complex, Near Hotel Sweet Milan, Goniana Road, Bathinda.
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Quorum : Sh. M.P.Singh. Pahwa, President Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member Sh. Jarnail Singh, Member Present : For the Complainant : Sh. Suraj Bahadur, complainant in person. For the opposite parties : Sh. Vikas Singla, counsel for OPs. O R D E R M. P. Singh Pahwa, President Suraj Bahadur, complainant, has filed this complaint against M/s. DHFL and others (opposite parties) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is bonafide consumer of the opposite parties. The opposite parties are engaged in the business of credit and finance services for housing purposes and primarily involved in processing loan requests from the customers. They disburse the loan amount to the eligible applicants. The complainant came into contact with opposite parties through one of their agent Mr. Avtar Singh in the month of December, 2014 to avail loan disbursement service from opposite parties Bathinda Branch. He applied for disbursement of loan amount of approximately Rs. 10,00,000/- for home loan purposes. It is also pleaded that agent, at the time of application, only took the signed application from the complainant, alongwith income proof and did not even mention what other documents he has to submit, in order to process the loan application. The agent assured the complainant that he would get the loan facility before 10th April, 2015 on the date when he(Complainant) has to pay full consideration for purchase of property/house. The complainant was under the impression that due process would be followed by the opposite parties. He was under an apprehension that he would get a favourable response from the opposite parties. However, after paying the consideration amount, the agent of the opposite parties did not give any receipt or any proof that complainant has paid the consideration neither he guided the complainant about any documentation which he has to fulfill for smooth processing of the application of complainant. The agent of the opposite parties only gave false assurance that complainant would be getting the loan amount in due course. It is further alleged that after many days, the complainant did not hear from the opposite parties nor from their agent. The complainant on different occasions contacted the agent of the opposite parties about the status of his application, but he always used to give false assurance that complainant would get loan amount. He also used to give false statement that advocate is not available and due to this reason, there is delay. The complainant has also alleged that from December to April complainant did not get any affirmative response from the opposite parties though he was in touch with their agent and office staff namely Karan, Chassu and Jassi. After getting mentally tortured and frustrated, the complainant through his counsel Sh. Nitish Banka served a legal notice dated 27-4-2015 demanding compensation and refund of his hard earned money, in reply to which dated 1-5-2015, opposite parties admitted the fact that complainant has taken the services of the opposite parties and had allegedly issued a sanction letter dated 28-1-2015. It is also alleged that this assertion is false as the opposite parties have never issued any such letter. The agent of the opposite parties on the other hand told the complainant that he has been sanctioned a loan of Rs. 9,60,000/- and 13 years old title deeds of the complainant are required. This fact was not disclosed to the complainant beforehand. Had it been the case, the complainant would not have applied for the loan, because getting certified copies of title deeds for the last 13 years would have been a challenge and would have taken months to procure the same. The agent of the opposite parties assured to get documents in the month of February, 2015 and demanded consideration of Rs. 10,000/- towards the publication in the news paper. The agent of the opposite parties in collusion with the advocate of the opposite parties, published in the newspaper for objection dated 9-2-2015. It is contradictory to the stand taken by the opposite parties in reply to the legal notice sent by counsel of complainant wherein the opposite parties contended that complainant never submitted the documents. The facts remains that it was the opposite parties and their agent who have undertaken the process of procurement of certified title deeds. Then again there was silence of the opposite parties and their agent about the procurement of documents. It is alleged that the conduct of the opposite parties constitute deficiency of service and the fact that information of procurement of the certified copies not conveyed to the complainant before the application tantamount to unfair trade practice adopted by the opposite parties. It is further alleged that after a delay of almost one month, the agent of the opposite parties collected the first certified copy dated 7-3-2015. There was another certified copy. He was supposed to collect but he failed to collect. The complainant after paying the due consideration amount to the opposite parties and their agent, collected the second copy on 13-3-2015 and gave it to the agent of the opposite parties. The assessment by Municipal Corporation was collected by the agent of the opposite parties on 20-3-3015. Still there was ample time for approval of the application but again the agent of the opposite parties failed to submit the copy to Advocate Deepak Dass of the opposite parties. On 28-3-3015, the opposite parties told the complainant that he should extend the registration of his property/house from 10-04-2015 for a month due to failure to process the loan application with time, It again exposes the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. There was again an ample time available for the opposite parties to process the loan application. The opposite parties indulged in dilatory tactics and did not respond to the call of the complainant and delayed the processing of his application on the pretext that 31-03-2015 is the closing and company could not process his application. The complainant again called the agent of the opposite parties to expedite his application process. He gave the processing case to another advocate Mr. Deepak Dass. This time again, the complainant did not have any information about his application. On 7-4-2015, again he visited the office of the opposite parties and provided copies of documents. This time Advocate of the opposite parties again delayed the processing of the application under the pretext of his illness. The agent of the opposite parties never responded. Finally on 23-04-2015, complainant came to know that opposite parties have rejected his application but no written report was provided by the opposite parties. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. He has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs. 2810/- alongwith interest and pay a sum of Rs. 5.00 Lacs as compensation on account of mental tension, agony and torture etc., in addition to litigation expenses amounting to Rs. 20,000/-. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through their counsel and contested the complainant by filing joint written version. In written version, they raised legal objections that complaint is not maintainable in its present form. That complainant has no locus standi or cause of action to file the complaint. That complainant is estoppped from filing the complaint due to his own act and conduct, admission, omission and acquiescence. That the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands. He has intentionally concealed the true facts. That complaint is totally false, frivolous and vexatious and is liable to be dismissed with special cost. On merits, the opposite parties have controverted all the material averments. However, it is admitted that loan facilities are provided by completing certain formalities. It is admitted that complainant approached the opposite parties for a loan of Rs. 10.00 Lacs but it is denied that agent of the opposite parties obtained signed application from the complainant alongwith income proof and did not mention what other documents complainant has to submit in order to process the loan application. It is further asserted that authorized representative of the opposite parties had disclosed in detail to the complainant all the necessary documents required to be furnished by him to process the application for loan including repayment through 12 PDCs + DCS mandate letter + three security cheques, positive legal and technician report clearance, positive all verification report of the applicant and co-applicant, LTV restricted Max 85% MV of property excluding insurance and DHFL home shield insurance Rs. 34,252/- to be deducted from disbursement amount. All these formalities are also clearly mentioned in the letter of offer cum acceptance which was duly received by the complainant after carefully hearing and understanding the contents of the same. It was also disclosed to the complainant that in case of non compliance of the credit, legal and technical policy at any stage of the loan application would result in the non ability to process the application further. It is admitted that complainant applied for the house loan of Rs. 10.00 Lacs on 1-12-2014 but other averments are denied. It is admitted that a sum of Rs. 2810/- was taken from the complainant through cheque towards the process charges. It is further stated that opposite parties have to put the application through credit, legal and technician verifications. It was also made clear to the complainant that at the time of taking cheque that it is non refundable amount irrespective of disbursal/non disbursal of the loan to which the complainant had agreed and issued cheque in question. It is denied that agent of the opposite parties had given false assurance that complainant would be getting the loan amount in due course. It is also the case of the opposite parties that prima facie based upon the income documents of the complainant, the opposite parties had issued a sanction letter in his name on 28-01-2015 but however he did not turn up to accept the said sanction letter even after repeated reminder. So there was no deficiency of service on the part of DHFL. It is asserted that as per company policy, for creating equitable mortgage, DHFL requires original title deeds for last 13 years but the complainant failed to provide the required deeds. Due to this reason, the opposite parties could not process the loan application. Later on, the complainant obtained certified copies of the documents and supplied the same before advocate on penal of the opposite parties for furnishing the legal report regarding title of the complainant. Since the complainant failed to furnish the original title deeds on the pretext that the same are not traceable, he was required to get the publication effected in the newspaper calling objection from the general public against creating of charge over the property in question. The complainant gave consent for the same. Only thereafter the publication was got effected in the newspaper for which he spent the requisite charges. It is denied that the opposite parties or their agent demanded or accepted Rs. 10,000/- for the same from the complainant. It is further stated that during the process of the legal report regarding alleged title of the complainant over the property offered by him for creating equitable mortgage ,it does not tally with the revenue record as there is no mention regarding Khasra number of the properties in the alleged sale/title deeds produced by the complainant before the opposite parties. No mutation was regarding the said property allegedly owned by seller of the complainant in the revenue record although revenue record of the property is in existence. Since the opposite parties were not able to create the charge over the said property in the revenue record by getting the lien marked in the revenue record, they could not process the application of the complainant for loan. As such, the loan application of the complainant was rejected. The complainant has intentionally and willfully concealed all these facts. Issuance of legal notice by the complainant is admitted but it is further mentioned that it is based on totally false facts and it was duly replied through their counsel. After controverting all other averments, it is asserted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Thereafter, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint. Parties were afforded opportunity to produce evidence. In support of his claim, complainant has tendered into evidence photocopy of account statement (Ex. C-1), photocopy of call details (Ex.C-2), photocopy of cutting of newspapers (Ex. C-3 & Ex. C-4), photocopy of legal notice (E. C-5), photo copies of postal receipts (Ex. C-6 & Ex. C-7), photocopy of reply of legal notice (Ex. C-8), photo copies of sale deeds (Ex. C-9 to Ex. C-11), photocopy of assessment by Municipal Corporation (Ex. C-12) and his affidavit dated 17-8-2015 (Ex. C-13), In order to rebut this evidence, opposite parties have tendered into evidence affidavits of Karanvir Singh dated 6-11-15 and Suraj Bahadur (Ex. OP-1/1 and Ex. OP-1/2 respectively), photocopy of affidavit of Anita Rani (Ex. OP-1/3), photocopy of legal scrutiny report (Ex. OP-1/4), photocopy of letter (Ex. OP-1/5), photocopy of power of attorney (Ex. OP-1/6 & Ex. OP-1/7), affidavit dated 17-11-2015 of Jeewan Garg, Legal Manager (Ex. OP-1/8) and photocopy of legal report (Ex. OP-1/9). We have heard complainant in person and learned counsel for the opposite parties and gone through the record. The complainant has reiterated his averments as taken in the complaint and as detailed above. It is further pointed out by the complainant that he applied for loan and paid a sum of Rs. 2810/- as process fee. Copy of statement of account of the complainant (Ex. C-1) also proves that a sum of Rs. 2810/- was debited from his account on 16-1-2015. It is further submitted by complainant that he was not guided about the documents which he has to fulfill. Of course the opposite parties have produced letter dated 28-1-2015 whereby he was intimated that the opposite parties have sanctioned loan on 23-1-2015 but the opposite parties have also laid down certain conditions in this letter. The complainant was not explained about these conditions properly. He was also not informed what documentation the complainant has to complete before disbursement of loan. The complainant was also not intimated regarding fate of his loan case. The complainant got served legal notice dated 27-4-15. The opposite parties have vaguely replied to the notice on 1-5-2015. In reply also, the opposite parties have admitted that complainant availed the services of the opposite parties. In reply, the opposite parties have admitted that complainant was not sanctioned loan. Although as per opposite parties, the complainant has failed to provide requisite documents and original title deed. The opposite parties got published public notice from the complainant for which he was to bear heavy expenses of Rs. 10,000/-. The opposite parties have mainly declined the loan on the ground that sale deeds do not tally with the revenue record. The copy of the sale deeds are before this Forum. Full particulars are mentioned in the sale deeds. Mere mutation does not confer the title. Therefore, all this proves that opposite parties have not properly appreciated the documents and has committed deficiency in providing service. As such, the complainant is entitled to the prayed relief. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that before claiming relief, the complainant has to prove himself as consumer. The complainant has simply paid Rs. 2810/- as process fee. He has not availed the loan. Therefore, the complainant does not come under the definition of consumer. The opposite parties have also placed on record letter dated 28-1-2015 which contains terms and conditions also. In this letter, the conditions which were to be fulfilled were detailed and it was made clear to the complainant that in the event of any non-compliance of legal and technical formalities required by DHFL, all the fees paid to DHFL will be non-refundable. As the complainant has failed to fulfill the legal and technical formalities, the opposite parties are justified to forfeit the process fee. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the opposite parties that as per complainant himself, he has paid the process fee which was credited to the account of the opposite parties on 16-1-2015. The opposite parties have produced letter of offer cum acceptance dated 28-1-2015. It proves that complainant was sanctioned loan on 23-1-2015, however, subject to the conditions detailed in the letter. The contention of the complainant that he was not informed regarding documentation and formalities to be completed by him is without any merit and stands belied by documentary evidence. It is not the case of the complainant that he fulfilled all the conditions. Therefore, the complainant cannot blame the opposite parties for delay or denial in reimbursement of loan. We have carefully gone through the record and have considered the rival contentions. The undisputed facts are that the complainant was interested to avail loan for purchase of house from the opposite parties and he paid Rs. 2810/- as process fee. The statement of account (Ex. C-1) of the complainant proves that a sum of Rs. 2810/- was debited from his account on 16-1-2015. The opposite parties have placed on record letter dated 28-1-2015 (Ex. OP-1/5). This letter is addressed to the complainant. It was intimated to the complainant that with reference to his loan application, the opposite parties are pleased to sanction loan on 23-1-2015. Of course the loan was subject to certain conditions mentioned in the letter and printed overleaf. The conditions include positive legal and technical report clearance, positive all verification report of applicant and co applicant. Therefore, the contention of the complainant that he was not informed about the documentation required to be submitted is without any merit and contrary to the documentary evidence. It is not the case of the complainant that he completed all the conditions particularly legal and technical report clearance. When the complainant himself has failed to fulfill the conditions as detailed in the letter of offer cum acceptance (Ex. OP-1/5), he cannot blame the opposite parties for delay or non disbursement of loan. In view of what has been discussed above, the complaint has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced : 22-12-2015 (M.P.Singh Pahwa ) President (Jarnail Singh) (Sukhwinder Kaur) Member Member
| |
