State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Susobhan Mondal vs Reliance Consumer Finance on 30 September, 2015
Daily Order IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision : 30.9.2015 First Appeal No. 873/13 (Setting aside the order dated 14.5.2013 passed in Complaint Case No.506/10 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum-X, Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi) In the matter of Susobhan Mondal Indian Institute of Mass Communication Aruna Asaf Ali Marg, JNU New Campus New Delhi-110067 ......Appellant Versus Reliance Consumer Finance 260-261, Reliance Capital House Tribhuvan Complex, Ishwar Nagar, NFC Police Station, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi=-25 CORAM Justice Veena Birbal, President Salma Noor, Member
O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)
1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
Justice Veena Birbal, President This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (in short 'the Act) wherein challenge has been made to order dated 14.5.2013 passed by the Consumer District Redressal Forum-X, Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi (in short, "the District Forum") whereby complaint case No. 506/10 filed by the Appellant/complainant has been dismissed. Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of present appeal are as under:-
Appellant herein was the complainant before the District Forum. He had filed a complaint under section 12 of the Act against the respondent herein i.e. OP before the District Forum, alleging therein that he had applied for a house building loan for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- from the respondent company through its Unit Sales manager, Sh. I.D. Singh. It was alleged that loan was required by appellant/complainant for a DDA MIG flat in the area of Rohini. The appellant/complainant had submitted relevant documents alongwith cheque of Rs.3,310/- towards processing fee on 16.3.10. The appellant/complainant has alleged that the aforesaid Sales manager of the responded had visited his house and obtained his signatures as well as that of his wife on relevant papers. Appellant had alleged that he had already informed the respondent/OP that due to a loan case his name had been put in the defaulter list in the CIBIL (Credit Information Bureau India Limited) and had further informed that four other banks had already declined loan to him on that account. However, the said Manager had assured for sanction of loan in his favour. The appellant/complainant had alleged that he had perused the loan application with the respondent bank. Ultimately the appellant/complainant had come to know that his application had not been processed. In these circumstances the appellant/complainant had to arrange loan from his relatives for making payment to DDA. Thereafter, upon appellant had requested for refund of the processing fee. However, the same was not refunded. The appellant/complainant had alleged deficiency on the part of the respondent/OP and filed the aforesaid complaint for refund of process fee amount i.e. Rs.3,310/- and Rs.54,531/- towards loss suffered on account of penalty paid to DDA. The appellant/complainant had also made a prayer for grant of Rs.1 lakh towards legal charges.
The complaint case was contested by the respondent/OP by filing a written version wherein it was alleged that the loan application was duly processed. It was alleged that the appellant/complainant had not disclosed about listing of his name in CIBIL. It was alleged that during processing of the said application, the respondent bank had come to know that the name of the appellant/complainant had been listed in the CIBIL. It was alleged that no penalty was paid by the appellant/complainant to DDA and that no assurance was ever given about the grant of loan.
Both the parties had led their evidence by way of affidavit before the District Forum. After considering the material on record and evidence in the form of the affidavit the District Forum dismissed the complaint case vide order dated 14.5.2013.
Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, present appeal is filed.
The appellant has contended that when the loan was not disbursed to him, the respondent/OP ought to have refunded the processing fee of Rs.,3,310/- to him. It is further contended that the appellant/complainant had already disclosed that his name had been put in the defaulter list in CIBIL. It is further contended that when the loan application was not meeting the requirements, the respondent/OP was not justified in assuring him loan and charging processing fee from him.
On the other hand Ld. Counsel for the respondent has contended that no evidence has been produced by the appellant that he had told the representative of the bank that his name was in the defaulter list in CIBIL. It is contended that rather the said fact was discovered during the processing of the loan application. It is further contended that the processing fee is a non refundable fee as per terms and conditions printed on the application form and the same were duly signed by appellant/complainant. It is contended that there is legal sanction through RBI for charging the said fee. It is further contended that respondent bank never assured for grant of loan. On the issue of penalty as is contended the respondent bank has submitted that respondent is not privy to any contract between appellant and DDA.
We have gone through the material on record as well as heard the submissions made by the parties.
No positive evidence has been pointed out by the appellant/complainant to substantiate that he had already informed the respondent bank that his name was in the defaulter list in CIBIL. There is nothing on record that he had informed in writing to the respondent bank. The application has made bald assertions without giving substantiating the same with any evidence. No evidence is also led that assurance was given to him for grant of loan. The grant of loan is not a matter of right. The bank has to consider the various factors including capacity of the person to repay the loan before the loan is disbursed to him. The material on record establishes that during the processing of the loan application of the appellant, it has been revealed that his name was on the defaulter list of the CIBIL and, therefore, the proposal for loan had been rejected.
The Ld. District Forum has considered every aspects of the matter and, thereafter has given the finding. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the bank in declining loan to him. The order passed is based on the material on record. No illegality is seen in the order which calls for interference of this Commission.
Appeal stands dismissed.
FDR/Bank Guarantee, if any, furnished by the appellant be returned forthwith after completion of due formalities.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge File be consigned to record room.
(Justice Veena Birbal) President (Salma Noor) Member (O.P. Gupta) Member (Judicial) AK