Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/152/2022

PRIYANKA - Complainant(s)

Versus

P.N.B. HOUSING FINANCE LTD - Opp.Party(s)

DEVINDER KUMAR ADV.

30 Nov 2022

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

 

Appeal No.	:	152 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	21.11.2022
Date of Decision	:	30.11.2022

 

 

 

 

 

Priyanka D/o Sh. Ram Avtar R/o H.No.2936/2, Sector 49, Housing Board Society, Chandigarh.

……Appellant/Complainant.

Versus

1]      P.N.B. Housing Finance Ltd., SCO No.323-324, Second Floor, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.

2]      Sukhdev Singh (Agent), P.N.B. Housing Finance Ltd., SCO No.323-324, Second Floor, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.

3]      Pankaj, P.N.B. Housing Finance Ltd., SCO No.323-324, Second Floor, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.

4]      Rahul Goyal (Branch Manager), P.N.B. Housing Finance Ltd., SCO No.323-324, Second Floor, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.

5]      Pawan (Advocate), P.N.B. Housing Finance Ltd., SCO No.323-324, Second Floor, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.

 …..Respondents/Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:  MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

              MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

                MR. PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY :-   

 

Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for the appellant.

 

PER  RAJESH  K. ARYA, MEMBER

                This appeal has been filed by the complainant, namely, Priyanka (appellant herein), against order dated 29.09.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘District Commission’), whereby her consumer complaint bearing No.1158 of 2019 has been dismissed by the Ld. District Commission.

2.             Briefly, stated the facts before the Ld. District Commission were that the appellant applied for loan of Rs.17 Lakhs vide loan application dated 28.06.2019 to purchase the House No.2936/2, Sector 49, Housing Board Society, Chandigarh from the respondent No.1-Bank through its agent i.e. respondent No.2. The said loan was sanctioned vide letter dated 01.07.2019 subject to satisfactory legal and technical clearance report/s of the Property. The respondents prepared two cheques for Rs.8 Lakhs and Rs.9 Lakhs of the loan amount on 10.07.2019 but the same were not handed over. Prior to the disbursement of the loan, as a condition precedent, the respondents on 07.08.2019 got conducted the Survey in order to confirm the occupancy status of the Property. In absence of said Survey Report dated 07.08.2019 (Annexure R-3), the loan could not be disbursed. After conducting the said Survey on 07.08.2019, the cheques were handed over to the appellant on 09.08.2019 at the time of registration of Sale Deed. Thus, as per the prevalent banking system, the first EMI becomes due and payable on 09.09.2019 whereas the respondents deducted EMI of Rs.13,211/- on 14.08.2019. As such, the appellant filed complaint before the Ld. District Commission seeking refund of Rs.13,211/- deducted illegally.

3.             On the other hand, it was the case of the respondents before the Ld. District Commission that on the basis of the loan application and the evaluation report (Annexure R-1), respondent No.1 – Bank sanctioned the loan of Rs.17,18,780/- vide letter dated 01.07.2019 (Annexure R-2). It was further stated that Mr. Pankaj Prasher, who conducted the surveyor of the property, submitted his survey report dated 07.08.2019 (Annexure R-3) stating that the property was found to be vacant. It was further stated that respondent No.1-Bank disbursed the loan amount as per the directions of the appellant/complainant stipulated in the disbursement request form dated 10.07.2019. It has further been stated that the statement of account dated 18.01.2020 distinctly shows that cheque No.890586 of Rs.9,00,000/- was issued by the respondent - Bank in favour of Pooja Sood, previous owner of the property and two cheques in the sum bearing No.890588 of Rs.8.00 lakhs in favour of the appellant and Rs.18,780/-  in favour of the ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd. were issued on 10.07.2019. The disbursement letter dated 09.07.2019 distinctly mentioned the due date of deduction of EMIs at point No.11 as 10th of Month and the same was well within the knowledge of the appellant as the disbursement letter signed by her.

4.             We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the appellant at the preliminary stage and have also carefully gone through the impugned order and the record.

5.             While assailing the order of Ld. District Commission, it was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the Ld. District Commission passed the order without considering the evidence and document placed on record by the appellant. It has further been stated that in the present case, without completion of the formalities, the respondents at their own and without the consent of the appellant prepared the demand drafts but neither any intimation nor the same were handed over to the seller. It has further been stated that the house was vacated by the tenant in the first week of August, 2019 and thereafter on 07.08.2019, the team of the Bank inspected the said house and submitted its report dated 07.08.2019 to the Bank, which is an admitted fact on record. It has further been stated that it was only after completion of formalities on 07.08.2019, that the demand drafts were handed over to the seller on 09.08.2019. It has further been stated that in August 2019 itself, the respondents took EMI from the appellant, which was illegal and not justified. It has further been stated that the Ld. District Commission has not properly appreciated the pleadings, evidence and law points involved in the complaint and passed the impugned order on the basis of conjectures and surmises.

6.             After considering the rival contentions of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant and going through the material available on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed at the preliminary stage, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. It may be stated here that perusal of record transpires that vide sanction letter dated 01.07.2019, Annexure R-2, total loan amount of Rs.17,18,780/- was sanctioned in favour of the appellant, out of which an amount of Rs.18,780/- was towards insurance premium. The said loan was to be repaid in 240 equated monthly installments i.e. Rs.15,520/- each and the processing fee receivable was Rs.8,260/-. As is clear from Disbursement Request Form dated 10.07.2019, Annexure R-4, two demand drafts for Rs.9 Lakhs and Rs.8 Lakhs and one cheque towards insurance premium were already prepared by the respondents but the same were handed over to the appellant only after inspection of Residential Property i.e. H.No.2936/2, Sector 49, Chandigarh which was done on 07.08.2019. The said demand drafts were handed over to the appellant only on 09.08.2019, which is admitted position on record. Thus, there was nothing wrong in process followed by the respondent in sanctioning the loan amount or its disbursal, which was in accordance with the governing rules and regulations and the procedure involved. The Ld. District Commission in its order also rightly held that the facts on record do not disclose or establish any unfair trade practice or violation of any rules or RBI Guidelines with regard to the disbursement of the loan or laid down procedure with regard to the loan granting facility and the procedure of the Bank.

7.             It is further pertinent to mention here that since as per the disbursement letter dated 09.07.2019, the due date of deduction of Equated Monthly Installment (EMI) was 10^th of the month, therefore, the first EMI fell due in August 2019, which was rightfully debited by the respondents from the loan account of the appellant on 10.08.2019 in consonance with the Disbursement Letter, Annexure R-6 and as per terms and conditions as agreed upon between the parties. Moreover, the due EMI of Rs.13,211/- for the month of August 2019 has been duly credited to the Loan Account of the appellant, thereby reducing the outstanding loan amount and there is no misappropriation by the Bank. Therefore, the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant that the respondents deducted excess amount of Rs.13,211/- from the appellant is totally wrong and baseless. The EMI due in the month of August, 2019 was rightly deducted and no deficiency is attributable to the respondents in doing the same. In our considered view, the Ld. District Commission rightly dismissed the complaint of the appellant and the impugned order does not call for any interference being valid and legal in the eyes of law.

8.             For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is dismissed at the preliminary stage being devoid of any merit with no orders as to costs. All the pending applications also stand dismissed having been rendered infructuous.

9.             Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

10.           File be consigned to Record Room after completion.

Pronounced.

30.11.2022.

(PADMA PANDEY)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

 

(RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

 

 

 

(PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

 

Ad