State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S. Chhabra Marbles & Tiles Industries vs Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. on 4 October, 2017
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G.)
Complaint Case No.CC/2017/49
Instituted on : 13.06.2017
M/s Chhabra Marbles and Tiles Industries,
Through : Mr. Harjeet Singh Chhabra,
R/o : 108/A, 107-E, Sector - B,
Industrial Area, Sirgitte,
Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Complainant.
Vs.
Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd.,
Shop No.101, 102 & 103,1st Floor,
Lalganga City Mart, Near Moti Bagh Chowk,
Raipur (C.G.) 492001 ... Opposite Party
PRESENT: -
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SHRI D.K. PODDAR, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI NARENDRA GUPTA, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:
Shri Shrijan Shukla, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri A.K. Shrivastava, Advocate for the opposite party.
ORDER
Dated : 4/October/2017 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. The complainant filed this consumer complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the O.P. seeking following reliefs :-
1. To direct the opposite party, to pay Rs.39,50,000/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Lakhs Fifty Thousand) to the complainant for the loss which it has incurred due to the negligent behaviour of the opposite party.
// 2 //
2. To direct the opposite party for the payment of interest @ 18% p.a. per annum on the entire amount.
3. Compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) for mental agony and irresponsible attitude and high handedness of the opposite party may also be allowed in the interest of justice.
4. Expenses in connection with the litigation amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- may also be allowed.
5. Any other relief which the Hon'ble Commission may feel deem fit and proper under the circumstances.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the complaint of the complainant are that the complainant M/s Chhabra Marbles and Tiles Industries, is into the business of manufacturing flyash bricks, designer tiles, interlocking, paver block, mosaic tiles, checker tiles etc. Apart from this the complainant is also the stockist of various kinds of stone and has its warehouse and manufacturing unit at 108A, 107-E, Sector - B, Industrial Area, Sirgitte, Bilaspur (C.G.), whereas the O.P. is the Housing Finance Company, which is engaged into the business of providing the loans to the needy persons for their business, constructing homes or for other purposes as per the requirement. As per the requirement of money for expanding its business, the complainant approached to the O.P. for taking the SMT Property Term Loan and made an application as Application No.01177983 dated // 3 // 29.07.2015. Considering this application the O.P., sanctioned the loan amount of Rs.1,00,78,705/- (Rupees One Crore Seventy Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Five Only) for the term of 144 months at the rate of interest 15% per annum (i.e. DHFL's RPLR 18.5% -/+-3.5% p.a. = 15% p.a.) which was a variable interest type and was liable to be revised by the O.P. from time to time. Out of this total sanctioned amount, the amount of Rs.70,68,898/- was disbursed to the complainant on 31.08.2015. For the disbursement of this amount Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand) plus applicable taxes total amounting to Rs.1,51,000/- was collected as the processing fees from the complainant and the amount of Rs.1,51,281/- per month was fixed as the EMI for the repayment of the disbursed loan amount. The O.P. had only disbursed the loan amount of Rs.70,68,898/- from the total sanctioned amount of Rs.1,00,78,705/- vide sanction letter with re : 00723628 dated 12.08.2015. In the said sanction letter with re :
00723628 dated 12.08.2015 certain sanction conditions was mentioned. After fulfilling all the sanctioned conditions only the rest amount was to be disbursed, which is called as top-up payment. As per the point No.11 of this sanction conditions, it was specifically mentioned that "First part disbursement will be towards closure of BT loan and balance top-up will be released later once we get title document and no dues.". In compliance of this condition, the complainant closed his BT loan, which the complainant had in the form of credit facility - CC &TL from Punjab and Sindh Bank and also obtained the title documents and no dues certificate as required. Thereafter the // 4 // complainant deposited the title documents with the opposite party and also documented the no dues as per the requirement. The complainant also complied with all the other sanction conditions as mentioned in the sanction letter with the sole aim of getting the balance top-up amount as possible, as the same was planned to be utilized for the expansion of his business and to enhance its profit maximization and to repay the loan time. In the point No.2 of the sanction condition, it is mentioned that the NOC CSIDC is to be documented before release of the top-up payment. Therefore, to comply with this condition with efficacy, the complainant wrote a letter dated 09.09.2015 to the Chief Director of CSIDC, Tifra, Bilaspur to provide the NOC for keeping the lease document as mortgage with the O.P. This document is the lease deed between CSIDC and complainant for the area of 54,000 sq. ft. allotted to the complainant on lease basis for running its business at Bilaspur (C.G.). But, the utter shock, CSIDC refused to give NOC vide its letter from NOC with Ref. No.CSIDC/B./Bhu.Aa./2015/5616 dated 24.09.2015 by stating the reason that under Clause 3.2 of C.G. Audyogic Bhumi Avam Bhawan Prabandhan Niyam, 2015, the permission for doing the mortgage in favour of DHFL is not possible and the same can be done with another nationalised bank. C.S.I.D.C. also asked that if the complainant is interested in obtaining the loan from other nationalised bank, then a fresh application can be made by him. This particular update was also informed to the O.P. by CSIDC since the copy of the reply was also marked to the O.P. and the complainant had also informed the O.P. about the same via telephonic // 5 // conversations with the representatives of the O.P. i.e. Area Manager, DHFL, Raipur (C.G.). Apart from this, the complainant has also visited the office of the O.P. at Raipur (C.G.) various times with regard to the concerned matter. In response to these visits and telephonic conversations of the complainant, the O.P. always said that the staff of the O.P. is pursuing the matter with the C.S.I.D.C. Department and the same will be sorted out soon. But the matter was lingered around for more than 1 year time and the precious time f the complainant was made futile, as the complainant was not able to enhance his business since he had not received the balance top-up amount disbursed. This particular act of the O.P. amounts to deficiency in service and the O.P. is liable to indemnify the complainant for the damage which the complainant has suffered due to the negligent behaviour of the O.P. The has been paying the EMI which is inclusive of the interest levied, on a regular basis and no default has been ever made by the complainant, though the O.P. has not fulfilled its part of commitment for the disbursement of the said balance top-up amount. Being aggrieved by the delaying nature of the O.P., the complainant wrote a mail dated 17.09.2016 requesting the O.P. to disburse the balance top-
up amount of Rs.30,09,807/- as per the sanction letter No.00723628 dated 12.08.2015. In reply to this email the O.P. replied via a mail dated 18.09.2016 and asked for the loan account number, name of the applicant along with the application number and the branch. The complainant giving utmost importance to the mailed back all the required details on the very next day via a mail dated 19.09.2016. In // 6 // response to this mail, the complainant received a mail dated 20.09.2016 from the representative of O.P., named Mr. Uma Shankar Verma designated as Area Sales Manager, SME - DHFL stating that few sanction condition like NOC from CSIDC, closure of Religare Loan, removal of CERSAI charges were pending as mentioned in the sanction letter. In response to this mail, the complainant answered him back via a mail dated 02.10.2010 attaching the required documents. To the most disgrace and to add the tyranny the O.P. never replied back to the mail of the complainant with any response and at last by losing all the hope the complainant mailed the O.P. on 21.11.2016 stating that, after providing all the requisite documents and complying with all the directed formalities, the O.P. has not disbursed the balance top-up amount. This act of neglecting the response amounts to deficiency in service and also amounts to unfair trade practice, as the O.P. has done the cheating with the complainant by not disbursing the sanctioned amount in time and this also lead to the heavy financial loss to the complainant. As the complainant had already planned for the investment of the amount, which was about to be disbursed by the O.P. for the enhancement of the business of the complainant, but all his efforts went into vein due to the deficiency in service done by the O.P. Hence to come out of this mess, the complainant applied for the loan from Kotak Mahndra Bank and the Kotak Mahindra Bank also sanctioned the loan amount applied for. On the basis of this sanction done by Kotak Mahidra Bank, the complainant asked the O.P. for the foreclosure of the sanction made by // 7 // it. Kotak Mahindra Bank had also disbursed in the sanctioned amount for the foreclosure of the loan account from the O.P. In reply to this request, the O.P. asked for the 5% foreclosure charge plus service tax against the foreclosure of the loan sanctioned by the O.P. Aggrieved by this response, the complainant mailed via mail dated 21.11.2016, wherein the complainant has specifically protested against the foreclosure charge levied by the O.P. and also asked for the return of the processing fees, interest that the complainant has paid till date, insurance charge which he has paid to cover the loan sanctioned by the O.P. and etc. charges which were levied on the complainant. In reply to this mail dated 21.11.2016 the O.P. replied via mail dated 01.12.2016 and in this mail O.P. showed its inability for the waiver of the 5% pre-payment charge referring to the terms of the loan agreement. The complainant being disappointed by the reply of the O.P. replied back via mail dated 02.12.2016 raising certain valid questions about the authority of DHFL to receive the required NOC from CSIDC. As the same was rejected by CSIDC on the ground that the NOC cannot be provided to DHFL, however, the same can be given to any other nationalised bank. The complainant also registered its protest against the pre-payment charges asked by the O.P. for the foreclosure of the loan amount. Because this extra burden was levied on the complainant, as O.P. was being on the default situation and because of the deficiency in service from O.P.'s end. This kind of action of the O.P. amounts to unfair trade practice. Witnessing the protest of the complainant and after conversation with the branch // 8 // officials, the O.P. mailed back to the complainant via mail dated 30.12.2016 stating that the O.P. is issuing the pre-payment statement with 'nil' pre-payment charges and also requested to collect the pre- payment statement from Raipur branch, but the O.P. levied Rs.500/- plus service tax for the levy of pre-payment statement, Rs.2,000/- plus service tax for the original loan document retrieval and handling charges. In compliance of and with the sole aim of getting the deposited original documents back from the O.P., as the same was needed to be submitted to Kotak Mahindra Bank, who has sanctioned the term loan and also sanctioned the loan for the foreclosure of the loan from the O.P., the complainant complied with the direction given via mail dated 30.12.2016 and deposited the amount of Rs.70,50,000/- as the closure payment of the loan account and also paid Rs.21,773/- on the different heads of doc retrieval, FCL, service charges etc. After making the above said payments the letter with ref. No.Raipur/Accounts/00002448 dated 21.01.2017 was issued to the complainant as a closure of loan account No.03900002448 along with the latest outstanding from bank, lease deed, list of documents deposited with bank, memorandum of deposit of title deed, No dues Certificate from the bank / financial institution and 7/12 extract. At last, as the loan sanctioned by the O.P. was also covered by the insurance from DHFL Pramercia Life Insurance and the complainant had paid Rs.78,000/- as the premium of insurance was also surrendered and the Insurance Company gave just Rs.22,837 against the surrender value of the insurance policy. Therefore, in this // 9 // complete exercise, the complainant has suffered the loss of Rs.9,50,000/- in different heads of paying Rs.1,51,000/- on the head of processing fees, Rs.56,000/- for the surrender of the insurance policy, Rs.40,000/- against the foreclosure of the loan account, Rs.4,00,000/- as the interest difference between the interest levied by the O.P. and the loan from Punjab and Sindh Bank, Rs.1,00,000/- paid as the processing fee to Kotak Mahindra Bank for the loan sanctioned and the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- paid as interest to Kotak Mahindra Bank against the disbursement made by them and the same had not been taken by the O.P. as the O.P. was doing the bargaining for the foreclosure charges to be levied on the complainant for the closure of the loan account. Apart from this due to the non-disbursement of the balance top-up loan amount for more than 1 year period, the O.P. has also suffered the business and financial losses. As the complainant had made the plan for the investment of the said amount in various sector of his business and had also made the required arrangements for the same. In this respect, the complainant has bared the loss of around Rs.30,00,000/-, apart from this loss, the complainant has also faced the mental trauma for the negligent behaviour of the O.P. The complainant has also served a legal notice to the O.P. through its advocate vide legal notice dated 18.04.0217 and the noticed was served to the O.P. on 24.04.2017, but the O.P. did not give any response to this notice. Hence the complainant filed the instant complaint.
// 10 //
3. The O.P. has filed its written statement and averred that the complainant applied for term loan from financial institution Dewan Housing Finance Limited for his business. The loan of the complainant was sanctioned and the complainant was informed that the property which the complainant wants to mortgage against the loan, is provided by Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. on lease, therefore, the complainant is compulsorily required to obtain No Objection Certificate from Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation and it is as per rules, but inspite of repeatedly asking for the complainant, the complainant failed to obtain No Objection Certificate from the concerned department, and later on Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. refused to give No Objection Certificate to the complainant, in writing. As the No Objection Certificate could not be received, therefore, it was not possible to proceed further in respect of loan applied for by the complainant and the action taken in the respect of loan applied for by the complainant was as per the rules. The O.P. did not suppress any fact and did not do any such act which harm the interest of the complainant. Later on the complainant himself had taken action for transfer of the above loan to Kotak Mahindra Bank and on the request of the complainant the O.P. closed the loan of the complainant @ 0% charges. The complainant got transferred the loan account in Kotak Mahindra Bank. In the entire complaint, the complaint did not mentioned that he is consumer, deficiency in service etc. because the O.P. did not commit any such act. The complaint is liable to be // 11 // dismissed. The loan taken by the complainant is of commercial nature and the loan had been taken for commercial purpose. This Commission has no jurisdiction to take cognizance the matter relating to commercial purpose. The complainant himself voluntarily got transferred his loan account and without and dispute to another financial institution, therefore, at present the complainant is not borrower/consumer of the O.P. On this count, the complaint is not maintainable. The complaint filed by the complainant is false and frivolous and is liable to be dismissed.
4. The complainant has filed documents. Annexure C-1 is copy of the sanction letter dated 12.08.2015, Annexure C-2 is copy of the letter from the complainant dated 09.09.2015 to CSIDC, Annexure C-3 is copy of the reply from CSIDC dated 24.09.2015 to the complainant, Annexure C-4 is copy of the sanction from the Kotak Mahindra Bank dated 08.11.2015, Annexure C-5 is copy of the email correspondences, Annexure C-6 is copy of the mail correspondence dated 30.12.2016, Annexure C-7 is copy of the closure letter dated 27.01.2017, Annexure C-8 is copy of the refund of the insurance policy, Annexure C-9 is copy of the legal notice dated 18.04.2017, Annexure C-10 is copy of the tracking record.
5. The O.P. has not filed any documents.
6. Shri Shrijan Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the complainant has argued that the complainant M/s Chhabra Marbles and Tiles Industries, is doing business of manufacturing flyash bricks, // 12 // designer tiles, interlocking paver block,, mosaic tiles, checker tiles etc. and the complainant is also the stockist of various kinds of stone. As per requirement of money for expanding its business, the complainant approached to the O.P. for taking the SME Property Term Loan and made an application. Considering the application of the complainant, the O.P. , sanctioned the loan amount of Rs.1,00,78,705/- (Rs.One Crore, Seventy Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Five) for the term of 144 months at the rate of 15% interest per annum. The O.P. disbursed a sum of Rs.70,68,889/- (Rupees Seventy Lakhs Sixty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Nine) to the complainant on 31.08.2015, but the remaining amount was not disbursed by the O.P. to the complainant. The complainant fulfilled the terms and conditions as mentioned in the Sanction Letter, but the O.P. did not disburse the remaining amount to the complainant. The complainant has deposited the title documents with the O.P.. The O.P. did not disburse the loan amount on the ground that C.S.I.D.C. has not issued No Objection Certificate. The complainant was paying EMI regularly. The complainant continuously sent mail to the O.P. for payment of remaining amount of Rs.30,09,807/-, but the same was not disbursed by the O.P. to the complainant, therefore, the complainant applied for loan from Kotak MahindraBank and Kotak Mahindra Bank also sanctioned the loan amount applied for. On the basis of the sanction done by Kotak Mahindra Bank, the complainant asked for the O.P. for the foreclosure of the sanction made by it. The Kotak Mahindra Bank had also disbursed the sanctioned amount for the foreclosure of the loan // 13 // amount from the O.P. The O.P. asked for the 5% foreclosure charge plus service tax against the foreclosure of loan sanctioned by the O.P. After conversation with the branch officials, the O.P. mailed back to the complainant via mail dated 30.12.2016 stating that the O.P. is issuing the pre-payment statement with 'nil' pre-payment charges and also requested to collect the pre-payment statement from Raipur Branch. The O.P. levied Rs.500/- plus service tax for the levy of pre- payment statement, Rs.2,000/- plus service tax for the original loan documents. The complainant had deposited the amount of Rs.70,50,000/- as the closure payment of the loan account and also paid Rs.21,773/- on different heads. The complainant has suffered loss of Rs.9,50,000/- in different heads of payment, Rs.1,51,000/- on the head of processing fee, Rs.56,000/- for the surrender of the insurance policy, Rs.40,000/- against the foreclosure of the loan account, Rs.4,00,000/- as interest difference between the interest levied by the O.P. and the loan from Punjab & Sindh Bank, Rs.1,00,000/- paid as the processing fees to Kotak Mahindra Bank for the loan sanctioned and the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- paid as interest to Kotak Mahindra Bank against the disbursement made by them. The O.P. had received extra amount from the complainant. The complainant suffered financial loss. The act of the O.P. comes within unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, therefore, the complainant is entitled to get the compensation as prayed by him in the prayer clause of the complaint. The complaint be allowed.
// 14 //
7. Shri A.K. Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. has argued that the complainant obtained loan for commercial purpose. The complainant is a proprietorship firm and is doing business in the name and style of M/s Chhabra Marbles and Tiles Industries, therefore, the complainant is not consumer and the dispute is not consumer dispute. Shri Shrivastava further argued that a sum of Rs.70,68,898/- had been disbursed to the complainant, but the complainant had failed to comply with the condition No.2 of sanction letter and the complainant did not submit No Objection Certificate from C.S.I.D.C.L., therefore, remaining amount could not be disbursed by the O.P. to the complainant. The O.P. charged the amount according to the sanction letter. The O.P. did not commit any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
8. We have heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties and have also perused the documents filed in the complaint case.
9. Firstly, we shall consider whether the complainant is consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ?
10. The complainant himself pleaded in para 1 of the complaint that "the complainant M/s Chhabra Marbles and Tiles Industries, is into business of manufacturing flyash bricks, designer tiles, interlocking paver block, mosaic tiles, checker tiles etc. Apart from this the complainant is also the stockist of various kinds of stones." In para 2 of the complaint, the complainant further pleaded that "as per // 15 // the requirement of money for expanding its business, the complainant approached to the O.P. for taking the SME Property Term Loan and made an application as Application No.01177983 dated 29.07.2015. Considering this application, the O.P. sanctioned the loan amount of Rs.1,00,78,705/- (Rupees One Crore Seventy Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Five Only)". In para 4 of the complaint, the complainant further pleaded that the complainant deposited the title documents with the O.P. and also documented the no dues as per the requirement. The complainant also complied with all other sanction conditions as mentioned in the sanction letter with the sole aim of getting the balance top-up amount as soon as possible, as the same was planned to be utilized for the expansion of his business and to enhance its profit maximization and to repay the loan timely."
11. The complainant has filed document Annexure C-1 which is Sanction letter dated 12.08.2015 issued by DHFL in favour of the complainant M/s Chhabra Marble And Tiles Industries. In the above sanction letter the name of Borrower is mentioned as M/s Chhabra Marble And Tiles Industries. It is also mentioned that loan was sanctioned under SMT Proper Term Loan. Document Annexure C-2 is letter dated 09.09.2015 issued by M/s Chhabra Marble & Tiles Industries, Bilaspur (C.G.) to Chief General Manager, C.S.I.D.C., Tifra, Bilaspur (C.G.). It appears that the complainant is manufacturer of Flyash Bricks, Designer Tiles, Interlocking, Paver Block, Mosaic Tiles, Checker Tiles and Elevation Tiles. It also appears that the // 16 // complainant is doing business and he obtained loan for its business purpose, which comes within commercial purpose.
12. In United Bank of India Vs. Janata Paradise Hotel And Restaurant, IV (2014) CPJ 383 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission, has observed thus :-
"7. Admittedly, complainant was registered partnership firm took term loan in the year 1986 from the O.P. Nowhere it has been pleaded by complainant that loan was taken for earning livelihood by means of self-employment and in such circumstances, complainant does not fall within purview of consumer, even then, learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint."
13. In Morion Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Uco Bank & Anr., III (2013) CPJ 261 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-
"10. We need not go into all the pleas raised by the Appellant for the simple reason that the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the Appellant for the loss caused due to floor which was not an insured peril. To that extent, we agree with the view taken by the State Commission. Insofar as the Bank is concerned, the complaint filed by the Appellant against it was not maintainable as the Appellant had availed the services of the Bank for a commercial purpose. A person who buys the goods or avails of services for a commercial purpose stands excluded from the definition of the "consumer" given in Section 2(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Larger Bench of this Commission in Sanjay D. Ghodawat v. R.R.B. Energy Ltd., IV (2010) CPJ 178 (NC) after taking into consideration the amendment carried out in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by Act of 2002, which came into force w.e.f. 15.03.2003 has held that a consumer who buys goods for "Commercial Purposes" or avails of the services attached to the goods in the nature of warranty, cannot be considered to be a consumer even for the // 17 // purposes of services during the warranty period in view of the amendment to Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act which came into force w.e.f. 15.3.2003. The decision of the Larger Bench of this Commission in Sanjay's case (supra), was upheld by the Supreme Court in Birla Technologies Limited v. Neutral Glass & Allied Industries Limited, IX (2010) SLT 396 = I (2011) CPJ 1 (SC) = (2011) 1 SCC
525."
14. In the instant case, the complainant himself pleaded that he obtained loan for expansion of his business, but he nowhere pleaded that loan was taken by him for earning livelihood by means of self- employment, therefore, the complainant is not a consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the dispute is not consumer dispute, hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this sole ground.
15. So far as merits of the case is concerned, Shri A.K.Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. has argued that the complainant has not fulfilled the conditions of the sanction letter and has not submitted No Objection Certificate from C.S.I.D.C., therefore, remaining amount could not be disbursed to the complainant and the O.P. did not commit any deficiency in service.
16. The complainant has filed Terms and Conditions of Sanctioned Loan Facility, which is marked as Annexure C-1. In Annexure 1 at Sl. No.2 it is mentioned that "NOC CSIDCL is to be documented before release of top-up payment." It appears that before disbursement of the remaining amount, No Objection Certificate from CSIDCL was required.
// 18 //
17. The complainant sent letter dated 09.09.2015 to the Chief General Manager, C.S.I.D.C. Tifra, Bilaspur, which is marked as Annexure C-2, regarding Providing No Objection Certificate. In response thereto, the Chief General Manager, Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., sent reply vide letter No. lh-,l-vkbZ-Mh-lh-@fc-@Hkw-vk-@2015@5616 fcykliqj fnukad 24@09@2015, in which it is specifically mentioned thus :-
"bl laca/k esa ;g voxr djk;k tkrk gS fd N0x0 vkS|ksfxd Hkwfe ,oa Hkou izca/ku fu;e 2015 dh dafMdk 3-2 ds varxZr nhoku gkÅflax QkbZusUl dkikZsjs'ku fy0 jk;iqj ds i{k esa yhtMhM ds vfHkgLrkadu@vuqefr fd;k tkuk laHko ugh gS ;fn vki jk"Vªh;d``r cSadks esa _.k ysus bPNqd gS rks u;s fljs ls vkosnu izLrqr djs rkfd vkids izdj.k esa vfxze dk;Zokgh dh tk ldsa A "
18. It appears that Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. had not issued No Objection Certificate in favour of the complainant, therefore, the O.P. was having right to not to disburse the top-up amount to the complainant.
19. According to the complainant the O.P. had charged extra amount, but the same has not been proved by the complainant. The amount has been obtained by the O.P. as per terms and conditions of the sanction letter. Therefore, the O.P. did not commit any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant is not entitled to get any compensation from the O.P. // 19 //
20. Therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant against the O.P. is liable to be dismissed, hence the same is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own cost.
(Justice R.S. Sharma) (D.K. Poddar) (Narendra Gupta)
President Member Member
04/10/2017 04 /10/2017 04 /10/2017