Date of Filling:      05.12.2016

                                                                                                                       Date of Order:      13.11.2018

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

THIRUVALLUR-1

PRESENT:   THIRU.S.PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M.                                 ….PRESIDENT

THIRU:R.BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc.L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP.,      …MEMBER

CC No.52/2016

TUESDAY, THE 13^th    DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018

C.Ramesh,

S/o, M.V.Karunagaran,

No.J9, Rail Nagar,

Koyambedu,

Chennai -600 107.                                   ……Complainant.

                                                 //Vs//

The Assistant General Manager,

SBI Homes Loan,

Iyyapanthangal Branch,

No.50 AR Plaza,

Mount Poonamallee High Road,

Ayyapanthangal,

Chennai -600 056,

Thiruvallur District.                            ……….Opposite party

The complaint is coming upon before us finally on 02.11.2018 in the presence of Thiru.A.R.Poovannan, counsel for the complainant and M/s. K.V.Srinivasan, counsel for the opposite party and upon hearing arguments having perused the documents and evidences on both sides, this forum delivered the following.

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY THIRU S.PANDIAN, PRESIDENT.

This complaint is filed by the complainant U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act-1986 against the opposite party for seeking direction to refund a sum of Rs.5,500/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum collected towards processing fees from the complainant by the opposite party and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and hardship due to the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and with cost.

2.The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:-

The Complainant approached the opposite party for financial assistance and the opposite party perusing all the documents relevant to loan and consented to sanction loan to the tune of Rs.34.80 lakhs to the complainant.  Then the complainant, on 20.06.2016, submitted a loan application with the opposite party’s guidelines and they informed the complainant that the loan amount would be sanctioned.

3. The opposite party on assurance then directed the complainant to pay the loan processing fees and in turn the complainant paid the amount by means of opposite a demand draft bearing No.361418 for a sum of Rs.11,500/- in favour of SBI, Ayyappan Thangal Branch towards the processing fees.  Further, the opposite party also completed all the formalities like personal verification, property evaluation, legal process etc., The complainant submits that the opposite party had also collected a sum of Rs.5,500/- towards legal fees.

4. After completing all those formalities almost after 45 days the opposite party informed the complainant that the complainant was not eligible for the loan and the opposite party not even left the complainant there itself and directed the complainant to approach the Sriperumbudhur Branch and the Manager there will sanction the loan to the complainant.  The complainant having no option,  went to Sriperumbudhur Branch and there he was again directed to go to Nolambur Branch.  The complainant was thus dragged by the opposite party.

5. That, since the loan was not sanctioned/disbursed to the complainant the complainant need not pay any charges to the bank towards loan process.  The complainant believing the words of the opposite party informed to his family members and relatives about the registration and all of a sudden the opposite party informed that the complainant that the complainant not eligible to housing loan and that the act of the opposite party amounts to gross deficiency in their service and is put to great mental agony and hardship to the complainant and therefore on 09.09.2016issued a notice to the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.17,000/- with interest and there was no reply from the opposite party.  The complainant again on 20.10.2016 issued a reminder to the opposite party on 09.11.2016 sent a vague reply and the same is incorrect.  Therefore the complainant filed this complaint for damage and compensation.

6. The contention of written version of the opposite party is brief as below:-

The complaint is not maintainable in law and on facts.  It is malicious, frivolous and vexatious.  The allegation mentioned in the complaint are denied, except which are expressly admitted herein and it is true that the complainant submitted loan application on 26.06.2016 to the opposite party for loan of Rs.34.80laksh.  The opposite party informed the complainant that the loan will be sanctioned only on his submitting all the relevant documents and after obtaining valuation report and legal opinion.  It was informed that the applicant satisfies the CIBIL report and satisfies the repayment clause, the loan will be processed.

7. That it is true that the opposite party was requested to pay, processing fee of Rs.11,500/- and Rs.5,500/- towards legal and valuation report.  The opposite party immediately processed the application for obtaining legal and valuation report and the charges were paid to them.  Subsequently Rs.5,500/- legal fees is paid to be legal advisor for the work done by him.

8. The opposite party on scrutiny, demanded complaint the following details.

A) CIBIL Deviation observed, that personal loan overdue and credit card written off and requested the complainant to submit the account statement for all the active loans in CIBIL should be submitted with repayment details, with proper attestation.

b) Complainant’s provisional salary slip alone was given, and the said salary is getting credited in different account, other than the one mentioned in the salary slip.

c) Complainant’s employee ID card was requested.  The appointment order given to the complainant, says the retirement age is 58 year, but the complainant aged about 64 years.  The opposite party required clarification.

d) co-applicant’s salary slip of June 2016 differs from previous month, so the opposite party sought for clarifications.  The assets and liabilities filed are also incomplete.  All these requirements were demanded from the applicant through HLST who sourced the application on 26.07.2016.  There was no reply from the complainant.

9. As the legal and valuation report were already processed and report were already submitted.  They are non refundable charges.  The purpose for which money was paid rightly utilized.  Legal report cannot be free.  The payment towards processing charges were refunded to the complainant on his request of Rs.11,500/- by demand Draft.  As the requirements were not issued to opposite party the complainant was not eligible for the housing loan, based on the incomplete documents.  Opposite party strongly denies that they directed the complainant to approach Sriperumdudhur Branch or Nolambur Branch and he has introduced all these pleading for the purpose of this complaint.

10. The complainant has not furnished the requirements need by the opposite party, to process the housing loan.  The loan amount involved is huge.  There is no deficiency in service.  There is no fault on the side of the opposite party.  Cause of action is false.  The opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation and as alleged and that too for Rs.1,00,000/-.  Hence the complaint may be dismissed.

11. In order to prove the case, on the side of the complainant, the proof Affidavit submitted as his evidence and Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 were marked. While so, on the side of the opposite party as his evidence proof Affidavit filed but not document.

12. At this juncture, the point for consider before this Forum is:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party as alleged in the complaint by the complainant?

2. To what other reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?

13. Written arguments filed and oral arguments also heard on both sides.

Point No.1:-

14. According to the allegations made by the complainant is that though the opposite party has given assurance to sanction the housing loan and received the amount of Rs.11,500/- as processing fees and also collected Rs.5,500/- towards legal fees and subsequently the opposite party declined to Bank loan which caused much mental agony and hardships which leads to the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.  If it is so, this Forum has to decide as to whether the complainant has come forward to prove the allegations by means of proper and cogent evidence which is prime duty of the complainant.

15. At the outset, on careful perusal of the evidence adduced by the complainant through proof Affidavit, it is learnt that the complainant had approached the opposite party Bank for housing loan, on submission of all relevant documents to loan and thereby the opposite party has informed that the complainant is eligible for a loan to the tune of Rs.34.80 lakhs and in turn the complainant submitted the loan application along with valuation report given by the qualified chartered Engineer which is marked as Ex.A1.  It is further stated that as per the direction given by the opposite party, the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.11,500/- as processing fees and a sum of Rs.5,500/- towards legal fees and further submits that the opposite party refer the matter to get legal opinion of the panel lawyer and obtaining the same.  All of sudden, the opposite party has declaimed the said loan and therefore the complainant had issued a notice to the opposite party which is marked as Ex.A3 and the same was received by the opposite party is marked as Ex.A4 and again the complainant sent reminder notice to the opposite party which is marked as Ex.A5 and for which Ex.A6 reply letter sent by the opposite party to the complainant and Demand Draft for sum of Rs.11,500/- and forwarding letter are marked as Ex.A7 and Ex.A8 respectively. 

16. while being so, on going through the evidence of the opposite party and also the written version, it is categorically admitted that the complainant loan application for housing loan along with some documents and received a sum of Rs.11,500/- as processing fees and Rs.5,500/- towards legal fees.  It is further stated that on scrutiny of the loan application of the complainant along with the documents and legal opinion the opposite party had demanded from the complainant certain details for sanction of loan viz., complainant’s provisional salary slip alone was given, and the said salary is getting credited in different account, other than the one mentioned in the salary slip, complainant’s employee ID card and the clarification in respect of the retirement age since the complainant aged about 64 years and also the clarification in respect of the incompletion assets and liabilities through HLST who soured the application on 26.07.2016 and for the same there is no reply from the complainant but instead of producing the requirements the complainant made a claim to refund Rs.17,000/- with interest on 19.09.2016.  It is further stated that as the requirements the complainant has not come forward to comply the requirement demanded by opposite party and thereby the opposite party has finalized that the complainant was not eligible for house loan, based on the incomplete document and therefore there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.

17. It is further seen that, on receipt of the letter from the complainant, the opposite party has returned a sum of Rs.11,500/- which is collected as processing fees by means of Demand Draft and in respect of the legal fees Rs.5,500/- since it has been properly utilized which cannot be refunded as per the terms and conditions of the Bank rules.

18. At this juncture, on careful perusal of the submissions putforth on either side, it is crystal clear that there is no dispute in respect of the loan application submitted along with Ex.A1 valuation report and for scrutiny and to obtain the legal opinion, the opposite party referred the matter to the panel Advocate by collecting a sum of Rs.5,500/- from the complainant towards legal fees and also it is an admitted fact that the Bank received a sum of Rs.11,500/- towards processing fees.  Further it is pertinent to note that the opposite party has required certain particulars about the clarification details age of retirement and the ECS account and provisional salary slip, but there is no reply from the complainant regarding this above facts and for the same there is no contention raised by the complainant before this Forum.  In such circumstances, on careful perusal of the documents filed by the complainant it is crystal clear that except the valuation report (Ex.A1) there is no other valid documents filed either before the opposite party Bank or before this Forum which clearly reveals that the particulars as sought by the opposite party’s Bank have not been produced by the complainant and therefore the opposite party has rightly declined the house loan. In furtherance, on receipt of the letters Ex.A3 and Ex.A5 the opposite party has given proper reply through Ex.A6 along with Demand Draft to the tune of Rs.11,500/- which was collected as processing fees from the complainant and clearly explained for not refunding the legal fees and inturn this Forum can easily come to arrive that the opposite party has properly replied and hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.  Thus the point No.1 is answered accordingly.

19. Point No.2:-

As per the conclusion arrived in point no.1, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed in the complaint.  Thus the point No.2 is answered accordingly.

In the Result, this complaint is Dismissed.  No Costs

Dictated by the president to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the president and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this 13^th November 2018.

       -Sd-                                                                                         -Sd-

  MEMBER                                                                                PRESIDENT 

List of document filed by the complainant:-

List of document filed by the opposite party:-

-Nil-

       -Sd-                                                                                     -Sd-

   MEMBER                                                                           PRESIDENT