BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF JANUARY 2022
PRESENT
SRI RAVI SHANKAR – JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI - MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 561/2014
The Manager,
LIC Housing Finance Ltd.,
1st Floor, Ashraya Empire,
R.P.D. Cross, Khanapur Road,
Tilakwadi, Belgaum-590 006.
(By Shri. Rajesh Shetty, Adv.,)
……….Appellants.
-Versus-
Shivakumar Khadabadi
R/at Plot No.77, Akshaya,
Vaibhav Nagar, Belgaum-590 010.
(By Sri. Venkatesh R. Bhagath, Adv.,)
……….Respondents
: O R D E R :
BY SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI - MEMBER
This appeal is filed by the appellant/Opposite Party being aggrieved by the order dated:26.03.2014 passed by Belgaum District Consumer Commission in C.C.No.712/2013.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:-
The complainant has availed housing loan of Rs.26.43 lakhs for construction of his house as per sanction letter dated:29.03.2011. The housing loan availed not being sufficient; the complainant approached the Axis Bank for additional loan and for takeover of the existing loan with Opposite Party. That Axis Bank having agreed to sanction the loan asked the complainant to obtain a letter from the Opposite Party mentioning the list of documents deposited with them to take over the loan. Accordingly, the complainant vide letter dated:22.08.2013 requested the Opposite Party to provide the list of documents deposited with Opposite Party in respect of loan No.16026302150 and paid Rs.530/- towards the service. The complainant sent ‘e’ mail dated:07.10.2013 and final letter dated:15.10.2013 was also sent to the Opposite Party. It is further submitted that due to not being able to obtain the list of documents from the Opposite Party, the complainant has not been able to obtain the additional loan from Axis Bank which has severely hampered his house construction process due to paucity of funds and increase in the overall cost of construction and he faced difficulties in meeting his commitments towards house construction expenses which has damaged his credibility. Hence, he filed complaint before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service.
3. After service of notice, the Opposite Party appeared and resisted the complaint by contending inter-alia that the complaint is not maintainable for not impleading the Back office, Banglaore and registered office, as the loan was sanctioned and disbursed by the Back office. The Opposite Party also contended that the complainant has not mentioned the list of which documents is required by him from the Opposite Party in his letter addressed to the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party has issued the list of documents lodged on 30.01.2014 to the complainant. That the compensation claimed is exorbitant and cannot be considered and hence sought for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
4. After trial, the District Commission, Belgaum allowed the complaint by directing the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for monetary loss as well as mental harassment from the date of complaint till realization and Rs.3,000/- towards cost and if failed to comply the order with the stipulated period, then the Opposite Party is directed to a sum of Rs.50/- per day till compliance of the order.
5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant/Opposite Party preferred this appeal on various grounds.
6. We have heard the arguments from both parties.
7. Perused the appeal memo and order passed by the District Commission, Belgaum, we noticed that it is an admitted fact that the respondent has availed a loan of Rs.26.43 lakhs form the appellant/LIC Housing Finance Ltd., for construction of the building by pledging certain documents. The allegation of the respondent is that, the loan availed for the construction was not sufficient for construction of the building, the respondent has approached the Axis Bank for additional loan including takeover of the existing loan of appellant. The Axis Bank has proceeded the application of respondent and sanctioned the loan, for which the respondent had to produce the list of documents that he had deposited with the appellant. However, in spite of payment of service charges of Rs.530/- in respect of loan account No.16026302150, the appellant did not furnish the list of documents and not furnishing all the list of documents enabling the respondent to avail the loan from the Axis Bank and because of shortage of funds, construction of house was severely hampered and because of construction cost was increased.
8. Perused the order passed by the District Commission, we noticed that the appellant has handed over the list of documents to the respondent on 30.01.2014 and this fact is not disputed by the respondent. However, the respondent had requested the appellant to furnish the list of documents by paying service charges on 22.08.2013 from 22.08.2013. The respondent requested the appellant repeatedly through mail and also personally. In spite of sufficient request, the appellant has not furnished the documents to the respondent. Hence, the respondent filed the complaint against the appellant in District Commission, Belgaum on 29.10.2013 and the appellant during the pendency of complaint, furnished the list of documents to the respondent. But there is a delay of more than four months. Hence, the District Commission after considering the facts held that there is a deficiency of service on the part of appellant and awarded Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and monetary loss and sufferings along with 10% interest. We also agree with the order of the District Commission, because the appellant has not furnished the list of documents to the respondent in spite of sufficient requests and personal visits. It is the deficiency of service on the part of appellant. Hence, the complainant is entitled for compensation with interest. However, the District Commission further directed to the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.50/- per day if the order is not complied within the stipulated period. It is not just and proper in our opinion, because multiplicity of awarding compensation will not meet the ends of justice. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, awarding Rs.50/- per day shall be payable by the Opposite Party if failed to comply the order within 30 days needs to be set-aside. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-
: O R D E R :
The appeal allowed partly. No costs.
The impugned order regarding payment of Rs.50/- per day if the Opposite Party failed to comply the order within the stipulated time i.e. 30 days is set-aside and remaining portion of the award made by the District commission is undisturbed and the same may be complied by the Opposite Party within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Commission to pay the same to the complainant.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Commission.
Sd/- Sd/-
Lady Member. Judicial Member.
Tss
