Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

The complaint case since been dismissed, dissatisfied and/or aggrieved with such decision, this statutory Appeal u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act is preferred by the Appellant, Sri Suvro Chakraborti.

The grievance of the Appellant against the Respondents were that firstly, before sanctioning any loan, let alone disbursement of the same, his name was recorded in the CIBIL for which he faced great difficulty in securing loan from other financial institutions/Bank; secondly, with a mala fide intention, the Respondents denied receiving some of the payments from him; thirdly, in the wake of changed circumstances, though he repeatedly asked the Respondents to let him know the due procedure in order to secure loan, the Respondents simply kept mum.  For redressal of his aforesaid grievances, the Appellant approached the Ld. District Forum by filing a complaint case.  However, the same being dismissed, this Appeal was moved.

In its defence, the Respondents submitted that as per prayer of the Appellant, they agreed in principle to sanction the desired loan in favour of the Appellant and accordingly, necessary letter was issued to him with a direction to confirm the terms and conditions being stipulated in the sanction letter.  However, the Appellant did not bother to confirm the same within the stipulated time frame. The Appellant neither complied with the terms and conditions as stipulated in the loan agreement and sanction letter nor supplied all the relevant documents to do the needful.  Therefore, the Respondents could not disburse the loan.  The Respondents further stated that when the Appellant approached them for sanctioning the loan jointly in the name of his younger brother and himself, they expressed their inability do so as it would entail execution of fresh agreement.  Further, as Dipak Kumar Roy @ Nirmal Kumar Roy already passed away, it would anyway require execution of a fresh agreement to facilitate sanctioning of desired loan in favour of the Appellant. The Respondents categorically stated that save and except payment of the sum of Rs. 10,830/-, the Appellant did not make any further payment to them.  Alleging non-cooperation and whimsical attitude of the Appellant, the Respondents prayed for upholding the impugned order.

Decision with reasons

On careful scrutiny of the documents on record and giving our thoughtful consideration to submissions being advanced by the parties, we came across several instances of arbitrary acts on the part of the Respondents.

It transpired from the copy of Loan Sanction Letter on record that the Respondents agreed in principle to sanction a loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- in favour of the Appellant on 15-10-2015.  In such circumstances, it is inexplicable, on what basis Appellant’s name featured in the CIBIL list on 14-10-2015.  While no disbursement took place at all, it seems, referring the name of the Appellant to the CIBIL itself was arbitrary. What is worse, although the Respondents withdrew its in-principle nod regarding the subject loan, no endeavour was made from their side to communicate such matter to the CIBIL which put the Appellant in great difficulty in securing loan from other Institutions.

The Respondents categorically stated in their WV that save and except the sum of Rs. 10,830/-, they did not receive any amount from the Appellant.  However, the copy of Appellant’s pass book with UBI, Midnapur branch belies such contention of the Respondents.  It appears from the said passbook that an amount of Rs. 1,140/- was debited from the account of the Appellant on 16-10-2015 for making due payment to the Respondents.  Incidentally, as it appears, such payment was made towards initial processing fee of the Respondents. The Appellant though claimed to have made some other payments in cash; however, in absence of documentary proof to substantiate such claim, we cannot take any cognizance of the same.

Another area of bone of contention between the parties was forfeiture of the processing fee amount of Rs. 10,830/- by the Respondents.  In accordance with the stipulated terms and conditions laid down in the loan sanctioning letter, the Appellant was required to communicate his acceptance of the stipulated terms and conditions to the Respondents in writing to enable the Respondents proceed with the matter further.  Undisputedly, it was not done.  In such circumstances, while the Appellant did not meet the first criterion for securing the subject loan, question of processing the loan did not arise in the first place. In view of this, the decision to forgo the processing fee amount being paid by the Appellant was highly unethical. 

The Appellant also drew our attention to the fact that although the Respondents did not pay a single penny of the sanctioned loan amount to him, they stated in their WV (page no. 7) that the loan amount was disbursed to him. Clearly, the Respondents resorted to falsehood in this regard.

Lastly, the Respondents though passed the entire buck upon the Appellant for the entire imbroglio, it appears from the documents on record that the Appellant shot several mails to the Respondents seeking due advice from them to clear his doubt.  However, no such tangible proof is furnished on behalf of the Respondents to show that they attended to the concerned mails with due alacrity. 

All these, needless to say, point out gross deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents.  In such premises, we find no reason at all to accord our stamp of approval to the decision of the Ld. District Forum.  Considering the gross injustice being meted out to the Appellant, we are inclined to allow this Appeal.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

The Appeal stands allowed on contest against the Respondents.  Appellant is entitled to get back the processing fee amount of Rs. 10,830/- from the Respondents together with compensation amounting to Rs. 50,000/-.  Non-compliance of this order within 40 days henceforth shall entail payment of simple interest @ 9% p.a. over the awarded sum from the date of filing of complaint case before the Ld. District Forum till full and final payment is made. The impugned order is hereby set aside.