AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member
The present Revision Petition ( RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent, as detailed above, under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 06.03.2019 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Maharashtra ( hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal ( FA) No. A/17/23 in which order dated 25.10.2016 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Thane (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 232 of 2013 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 06.03.2019 of the State Commission and quash all other proceedings taken against the Petitioner arising out of or in relation to complaint no. 232 of 2013 of the District Forum.
Petitioner has challenged the said order dated 06.03.2019 of the State Commission inter alia on the following grounds :
(i) The Petitioner acted within the limits of approved banking guidelines.
(ii) Respondent himself submitted letter dated 16.05.2013 and 18.05.2013 and on the face of it, respondent was very well aware of the fact that Rs.14045/- was paid by him towards processing fees which was admittedly apprised to him to be not refundable.
(iii) Respondent signed the declaration in the application form which stated that processing fee is non-refundable. The Respondent accepted the sanction letter as well and also due to non submission of original title deed, loan could not be disbursed by the petitioner.
(iv) Rs.4510/- was paid by the respondent towards various appraisals for processing of loan and processing fee is separate from the fees paid for appraisals.
(v) State Commission has failed to put respondent to strict proof through documentary proof on record.
(vi) In the present case, from the sanction letter it is evident that loan was duly sanctioned in the name of respondent but since he failed to fulfill the documentary requirement, the loan amount could not be disbursed and, therefore, respondent is not entitled to get the refund of processing fee or sanction fee.
(vii) The sanction fees paid by respondent has already been utilized towards the steps required for loan sanctioning and therefore same cannot be refunded by the Petitioner.
(viii) Respondent is not a consumer under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as petitioner had not provided any service to the respondent and respondent had not signed any contact for availing services of petitioner.
Heard both sides. Main dispute pertains to refund of Rs.14,045/-, which the OP / petitioner herein claims is towards processing fee and the same, according to their instructions, is non refundable. Petitioner has drawn our attention to the loan application form dated 20.04.2013, wherein it is mentioned that “Processing Fee paid is non refundable”. The Petitioner contends that loan was sanctioned on 27.04.2013, al-though, the Respondent contends that such sanction remains in the system of OP only and was never communicated / issued to the complainant / respondent, which is evident from the fact that even on 30.04.2013, a query was sent to his employer seeking certain details and record of telephonic conversation with one of the official of the petitioner, which has not been disputed by the Petitioner during the proceedings at lower Fora.
The Petitioner has drawn our attention to letter dated 18.05.2013, in which, it is mentioned that “Processing Fees are to be collected at the time of loan application and are non refundable in nature”.
A perusal of the account statement shows that amount of Rs.4510/- was debited from the account on 27.04.2013 while amount of Rs.14,045/- was debited on 29.04.2013. Petitioner has also drawn our attention to the list of minimum documents which are required from the customer opting for home loan. As per this, interalia, following two points are mentioned :
· 4510/- initial processing chq ( Non refundable)
· 0.75% to 1% sanction fees for home loan and 1.50% for mortgage loan/ admin fees upto 1.50% in case of mortgage loan ( excluding service tax).
It is admitted by the respondent that Rs.4510/- was paid at the time of loan application through a cheque and this amount being towards processing fee, is not disputed by the respondent. However, the respondent contends that PDC for Rs.14,045/- given towards the sanction fee was linked to the sanction / disbursement of the loan. As the loan sanctioned was never communicated to the respondent and it was not disbursed, according to him, no sanction fee is chargeable for this purpose.
We have carefully gone through the order of the State Commission and all other relevant records, in particular the documents mentioned above, which makes it very clear that Rs.4510/- was undisputedly towards ‘processing fee’, hence not refundable but Rs.14,045/- was not towards processing fee. It was towards ‘sanction fee’ even as per the petitioner’s own document stated above. We also tend to agree with the respondent that loan sanction order dated 27.04.2013 was perhaps issued internally but not communicated to the respondent. Even the communication dated 18.05.2013 makes it clear that processing fee is to be collected at the time of loan application. Hence we hold that amount of Rs.14,045/- was not towards processing fee. Hence, the State Commission was right in allowing the refund of Rs.14,045/- and upholding order of the District Forum in this regard.
As was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rubi Chandra Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2011) 11 SCC 269], the scope in a Revision Petition is limited. Such powers can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order. In Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. [AIR (2022) SC 577], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.” No new law points have been raised. We do not find any illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission. Hence, the same is upheld. Accordingly, Revision Petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.5000/- to the respondent. All amounts to be paid under this order to the respondent will be paid within one month, failing which it will carry interest @ 9% p.a.
The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.