State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shri. Bajrangilal S/O Bachairam Gupta vs Aditya Birla Finance Limited on 12 December, 2025
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
CIRCUIT BENCH NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/CB2/27/A/193/2019
SHRI. BAJRANGILAL S/O BACHAIRAM GUPTA
PRESENT ADDRESS - R/O. HOUSE NO. 153, WARD NO.38, TUKARAM CHAWL, SADAR,
NAGPUR-440 001,MAHARASHTRA.
SHRI. RAJESH S/O BAJRANGILAL GUPTA
PRESENT ADDRESS - R/O. HOUSE NO. 153, WARD NO.38, TUKARAM CHAWL, SADAR,
NAGPUR-440 001,MAHARASHTRA.
.......Appellant(s)
Versus
ADITYA BIRLA FINANCE LIMITED
PRESENT ADDRESS - THROUGH ITS SENIOR MANAGER, 5TH FLOOR, AKARSHAN,
CENTRAL BAZAAR ROAD, RAMDASPETH, NAGPUR-440 010,MAHARASHTRA.
.......Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MRS. KALYANI KAPSE , PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE MS. SHAILA D. WANDHARE , MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT:
ADV. SACHIN GUPTA FOR THE APPELLANT.
FOR THE RESPONDENT:
ADV. P.N. KOTHARI FOR THE RESPONDENT.
DATED: 12/12/2025
ORDER
(Delivered on 12/12/2025) Per Mrs Kalyani Kapse, Hon'ble Presiding Member/
1. The present appeal is preferred by the Appellants/Original Complainants namely Bajrangilal S/o Bachairam Gupta and Rajesh S/o Bajrangilal Gupta, Nagpur against the Order and Judgement dtd. 20/05/2019 in Complaint No. RBT/CC/18/526 passed by learned Additional District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Nagpur (The Forum) under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. (for the sake of brevity "The Act")
2. The learned Additional Forum at Nagpur has dismissed the complaint filed under section 12 of the Act and hence this appeal. The brief facts of the appeal mentioned herein below. (Parties are hereinafter referred as per their original nomenclature i.e. the present Appellant as Complainant and present Respondent, Aditya Birla Finance Ltd. as Opposite Party for better appreciation)
3. It is the case of Complainant that the complainants are businessmen and are owners of M/s Om Steel Traders and M/s Bajrang Steel Traders. The Opposite Party is a Non-Banking Financial Company and it provides finance for business, housing and other activities. In February 2014, agent of the OP approached the complainants and convinced them to take loan from the OP to expand his business accordingly they applied for loan of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- They provided all documents to the OP as demanded and after due verification and search of his properties, the OP intimated them about grant of loan against their house. The OP issued Offer Letter dated 27/2/2014. But as there were some discrepancies in the letter they did not accept it. The OP then again issued Offer Letter dated 14/3/2014 with sanctioned amount Rs. 250/- lakhs, which was accepted by them. The OP promised them to disburse loan. After acceptance of Offer Letter by them, they paid processing fees of Rs. 2,75,900/-, documentation charges and stamp duty Rs. 50,000/- by franking the document and also paid Rs. 5000/- for purchasing stamp papers for affidavits. But even after lapse of several days the OP did not disburse the loan amount. Then on 02/04/2014 the OP issued another Offer Letter in which Head of Amount Sanctioned was changed and directed them to sign the same as token of acceptance. However, due callous and unprofessional behaviour of the OP, the complainants did not want to go ahead. They, therefore, sent e-mails to the OP for refund of processing fees and franked documents. The OP informed them that processing fees would not be refunded but franked documents would be returned. They received franked documents. Since their repeated attempts to get back processing fees failed, they issued legal notice to the OP and demanded refund. The OP gave false reply to it. Thus it is alleged, the OP has cheated and played fraud on them and left them high and dry after accepting processing fees. They have, therefore, suffered financially, mentally due to such unprofessional behaviour of the OP Hence, by this complaint they have claimed refund of processing fees Rs. 2,75,900/- with interest expenses incurred for return of franked charges, Notice charges, compensation, total Rs.6,10,224/- from the OP.
4. Notice was served to Opponent. By way of Written Version (W.S.) Adity Birla Finance Ltd., Opposite Party by general denials and defences restricted the claim of the Complainant. In reply Opposite Party submitted that the Complainants requested for loan of Rs. 2,50,00,000/-, It was informed by the complainants that they were already having two separate loan accounts with Axis Bank by way of Over Draft facility. It informed him that those two loan accounts would be required to be closed so as to make him eligible for loan from the OP. The complainants agreed and so the OP issued Offer Letter for loan of Rs. 2,50,00,000/-, which was to be repaid in 112 equal monthly installments. He offered to mortgage his house. He was specifically told that 1% of total loan amount and taxes would be chargeable as processing fees. The important condition for providing loan was that the property which was proposed to be mortgaged should be acceptable to the OP. He accepted the Offer Letter. It is denied head of Amount Sanctioned was changed in the letter by the OP. It is stated, the same amount was divided in to two parts for the reason that two loans were sought against the property. Similar two loans were already in existence with Axis Bank. Total of two amounts mentioned in the letter dated 14/3/2014 was Rs. 2,50,00,000/-. The complainants further requested the OP that instead of one single loan, the amount be disbursed in two parts and property be mortgaged in one loan to save him from paying stamp duty on entire loan. Therefore loan was bifurcated in two parts. It is denied there was no unprofessional behaviour nor any fraud or cheating. It is further stated, the OP informed them it was ready to disburse entire loan and they had already complied with all formalities, except security which was to be provided by the complainants.
5. It is further stated, the property which the complainants offered to mortgage as security was already mortgaged with Axis Bank. papers of the property So, the OP informed them that unless all original pa were brought from the Axis Bank by clearing mortgage, the same could not be accepted as valuable security for loan. The complainants brought laminated documents from Axis Bank, which cannot be accepted for equitable mortgage. Laminated documents are accepted by financia institutions. It was clearly explained to the complainants and request was made that they should create registered mortgage of the property. Though, initially the agreed to to get registered mortgage, later they issued e-mail informing that due to some banking reasons they were unable to carry out further procedure and demanded refund of processing fees and franked documents. Thus the complainants withdrew themselves from the contract and so the loan could not be disbursed. To their letter dated 18/4/2014, a detailed reply was sent on 22/4/2014 informing the that processing fees was non refundable. With that letter franked documents were handed over to them. Processing fees was charged for completing formalities and loan is disbursed only after satisfying various things. Thus denying all allegations of the complainants, it is submitted to dismiss the complaint.
6. The leamed Forum, thereafter recorded the evidence led by the Complainant as well as Opposite party. The learned Forum, also went through the documents filed by both the parties as well as written notes of arguments. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence the leamed Forum, has dismissed the Complaint.
7. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present Appeal is being filed by the original Complainant on the following Grounds. The learned Forum has not only misconceived, in law, but also in facts, while passing the impugned order, thereby dismissing the complaint of the Appellants is erroneous, one sided and without going through the Submissions and Counter Affidavit filed by the Appellants. The learned Forum has completely misunderstood the case of the Appellants. The Forum ought to have considered this fact that the Appellants are Consumers. They have applied for loan with the Respondent to earn their livelihood. They are businessmen who carries business to earn their livelihood for the subsistence of their family, they are not any manufacturer, basically they are traders and as such as per Consumer Protection Act, they are Consumer of the Respondents. The learned Forum has grossly misconceived the law in this regard and further erred in passing an erroneous order, stating that the Respondent takes the processing fees for processing the loan. It is specifically submitted that the Respondent without sanctioning the loan amount taken processing fees, this point was not at all considered by the learned Forum and as such it had arrived at illegal findings diverse from the facts of the case, and as such the impugned order dated 20/05/2019, needs to be set aside, in the interest of justice.
8. The other grounds for filling the present appeal as follows- The Learned Forum has also not gone through the submission made by the Appellants in support of their case. The Respondent has taken the "Processing Fee" without disbursing the loan amount. It is submitted that the person of the Respondent viz. Yogesh Sonkusre, has guided the Appellants to send e-mail and also the wording of e-mail was drafted by him. It is submitted that all the e-mails were sent by the Respondent on the guidelines of Shri. Yogesh Sonkusre, he also helped the Respondent in getting their "Franked Documents" from the Respondent and this facts was not disputed by the Respondent. This ought to have been taken into consideration by learned Lower Court, they ought to have inferred that the Respondent's person was guiding the Appellants, the learned Forum ought to have considered that with nefarious intention to get the processing fee the Respondent were doing this type of things. therefore, the impugned order passed by the Learned Forum is liable to be set-aside, in the interest of justice.
9. Hence the appellant prayed to call the records and papers of Consumer Case No. RBT/CC/ 18/526 (Old Case No. CC/ 309/2016), in between Bajrangilal Gupta & 1 Other -Vs - Aditya Birla Finance Limited, decided on 20/05/2019 by the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur, and after due hearing the same may kindly be set-aside.
10. We have heard Mr. Sachin Gupta, learned advocate for the Appellant and Mr. P. N. Kothari learned advocate for the Respondent. We have carefully gone through the documents and papers and written notes of arguments filed by both the parties which are placed on the record. On the basis of the facts stated above following points arises for determination with our findings recorded against the same as under.
Sr. No. Points for determination Findings
01. Whether the impugned order dated 20/05/2019 In the Negative passed by the learned Additional District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Nagpur in Complaint case No. RBT/CC/18/526 suffers from any infirmity or illegality and needs any interference?
02. What order? As per final order REASONS As to Points No. 1 and 2-
11. It is submitted that the Opposite Party has given Offer Letter after verifying all the documents and credentials of the Complainant which have not been considered by the learned District Forum, Nagpur. Further the OP has issued offer letter dated 27/02/2014 for acceptance and signature of the Appellants, but as there were some discrepancies in the offer letter, they have asked the OP to change the same and which was accepted by the OP and that was the only reason that they have issued another offer letter dated 14/03/2014 and on confirmation of sanction of loan the have paid the processing fee, thus after getting the Offer Letter which is like a confirmation letter for sanctioning loan, the Complainant have paid the Processing Fee, thus processing fee is not for processing a loan file, if that would have been the case, the OP would have taken the processing fees at the time of application of loan only, but in this case, it was paid when the Complainant got the Offer Letter.
12. Complainant contended that there is deficiency in service by the OP was proved by their "Written Statement" itself. It is submitted that the OP has never asked the Complainant /Appellants for registered Mortgage. The OP/Respondent filed documents along with list of documents, the document at Sr. No. I titled "Facility Agreement" the column No. 20 clearly shows "Equitable" Mortgage, thus the contention of the Respondent is totally false about "registered" Mortgage. The Appellants were having two loan accounts with AXIS Bank, therefore, they wanted to take loan of Rs.2,50,00,000/- from OP/Respondent in one stroke and in one account. It is further submitted that the OP/Respondent has purposefully not filed the Sanction Letter dated 14/03/2014 were loan amount of Rs.2,50,00,000/- is bifurcated only because the Complainant /Appellants have never put their signature on it, thus its clearly shows that the OP/Respondent failed to provide proper service. It is submitted by the Complainant/ Appellants to kindly ask OP/Respondent to produce Sanction Letter dated 14/03/2014, having signature of the Complainant/ Appellants, containing bifurcated loan amount of Rs.2,50,00,000/-.
13. The Complainant contended that OP/Respondent had taken the "Processing Fee" without disbursing the loan amount. It is submitted that the person of the OP/Respondent viz. Yogesh Sonkusre, has guided the Complainant /Appellants to send e-mail and also the wording of e-mail was drafted by him. It is submitted that all the e-mails were sent by the Appellants on the guidelines of Shri. Yogesh Sonkusre, he also helped them in getting their "Franked Documents" from the OP/Respondent.
14. The OP/Respondent draws our attention that complainant/appellant has raised the ground stating that, the complainant had applied for loan for earning his livelihood, however the learned District Forum erred in dismissing complaint without considering the said point. The another ground raised in the appeal memo by the appellant is that offer letter was given by the respondent after verifying the documents and the appellant found that there are discrepancy in the offer letter, which was requested to be changed. It is further contended by the appellant that processing fees was paid after the offer letter was issued and therefore the learned District Forum ought to have considered this fact. The other ground which is raised by the appellant is that the documentation charges were only paid by him after confirmation of sanction of loan and therefore the same should have been refunded.
15. According to the appellant the learned District Forum did not consider any of the grounds raised in the complaint and considered irrelevant things while passing the judgment. It is also alleged by the appellant that the processing fees was obtained by the respondent without disbursing loan and one Yogesh Sonkusare had guided the appellant to send e-mail which was sent by the appellant. It is, therefore, alleged by the appellant that he is entitled for refund of the processing fees and therefore District Forum has wrongly dismissed his complaint. The respondent submits that the entire appeal as well as the complaint were filed absolutely on wrong facts, and therefore was liable to be dismissed.
16. The respondent submits that because the offer issued by the present respondent was beneficial to the complainant, therefore he decided to close his existing two loans account with Axis Bank. Therefore, it cannot be said that the opponent/respondent had given some offer which was not better than the loan provided by the Axis Bank. The documents placed on record categorically show that the appellants were not entitled for refund of processing fees once the loan is sanctioned after completion of all formalities.
17. In the present case processing was required to be condoned before disbursement of loan. It is submitted that after processing the proposal if the financial institute finds that there are some shortcomings the borrower is called to fulfil those shortcomings. The processing includes several formalities to be completed including title verification report, physical verification, verification of ITR etc. It is only after these processes are completed, that the financial institute will decide of disbursement of loan. Thus, it is absolutely incorrect on the part of appellant to state that the processing fees cannot be charged before disbursement of loan. The ground therefore raised in the appeal is absolutely false.
18. The respondent submits that the appellants were having two loans which were existing with the Axis Bank. The loan amount of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- was therefore required to be bifurcated in two parts so as to close two loans and accordingly the amount of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- was agreed to be disbursed in two parts for closure of two loans.
19. The respondent therefore states that it is absolutely false statement made on the part of appellant that the present respondent failed to disburse the loan amount in one stroke. The respondent submits that a letter was issued by the respondent dated 22nd April 2014 is important in this regard. The perusal of the said letter would show that the parties had agreed for disbursement of loan subject to correction of security over immovable properties to the satisfaction of the respondent. By the said letter the respondent categorically informed thee appellant that appellant has failed to create mortgage over the said property which was as security.
20. After hearing both parties and perusing the record, the following points arise Whether the processing fee is liable to be refunded when the loan is not disbursed? Firstly we have to see the nature of Processing Fee. Processing fee is generally charged for verification of documents, credit appraisal, site/property inspection and administrative work. In the instant matter question arises whether processing was actually done? It is seen from the documents on record and for document verification as admitted by complainant. Therefore, the bank has rendered service for which the fee was charged. Secondly the Complainant alleged that Non- disbursal of loan amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Bank/OP? It is well- settled that non-disbursal of loan does not automatically entitle the borrower to refund of processing fees, when the fee is towards administrative processing. Even if the borrower withdraws the application, the processing already undertaken does not get undone. It is pertinent to note here that the OP has contended that the application form/loan brochure clearly mentions "Processing fee once paid is non- refundable." The complainant has signed and accepted these terms. Hence there is no deficiency in service. The complainant has not shown any negligence in processing, undue delay, or malafide refusal of loan. Thus, no deficiency is proved. The letter dated 14th March 2014 very categorically shows that processing fees of 1% of the loan would be payable. The O.P./respondent submits that the loan which was agreed to be provided was against property which was already mortgaged with Axix Bank which fact was suppressed by the appellant.
21. We are of the considered view that the District Commission has rightly held that the complainant is not entitled to refund of processing fees, as the bank has performed the processing work, and the terms clearly state non-refundability. No illegality, infirmity, or perversity is found in the impugned order.
22. Hence in our considered view the grounds on which appellant has filed the instant appeal is not maintainable in the eyes of law. We find no illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by the District Consumer Forum, Nagpur. The appeal being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed. Hence we pass the following Order-
//ORDER//
i. Appeal is hereby dismissed.
ii. No order as to cost.
iii. Copy of this order be furnished to both the parties free of cost.
..................J
KALYANI KAPSE
PRESIDING MEMBER
..................J
SHAILA D. WANDHARE
MEMBER