Nagesh Kumar vs ASHISH KHANNA

THE present appeal is directed against order of District Forum, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, dated 28.3.2001, passed in Complaint Case No. OC/276/2001entitled Shri Nagesh Kumar v. Shri Ashish Kumar Shelters and Others.

THE relevant facts necessary for the disposal of the present appeal, in brief, are that the appellant had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), averring therein that the appellant had applied for a housing loan, for the construction of the first floor on his fathers house No. 183, Sharda Niketan, (Pitam Pura), Delhi-34, with the Citi Bank under the Citi Bank Home Loan Scheme and had accordingly been directed by the officials of respondent No. 3 to submit his loan application through M/s. Shelters (a Citi Bank Associate), whose office is located at Surya Kiran Building, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Accordingly, the appellant had approached said M/s. Shelters and duly submitted his loan application along with relevant documents on 23.11.2000 and had also paid the requisite processing fee for the loan application amounting to Rs. 3,000/-. THE appellant was assured that the amount of loan would be sanctioned in his favour within a weeks time. However, despite lapse of one month the respondents failed to intimate the appellant regarding sanction of loan. It was stated by the appellant that the appellant had to borrow the amount from the market, as well as, from other individuals, at exorbitant rates of interest, for carrying out the construction. It was, therefore, prayed that the respondents had indulged in unfair trade practice in cheating innocent people desirous of seeking financial help/loan from the Citi Bank, by being forced to pay processing fee to M/s. Shelters for the processing of the loan application irrespective of whether the loan was sanctioned or not. Accordingly, the appellant had made a prayer in his complaint that the amount of Rs. 3,000/- charged by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from the appellant towards processing fee of the loan application be refunded to him together with interest @ 18% p.a. w.e.f. 23.11.2000 till the date of actual payment together with exemplary costs and compensation. The learned District Forum, without issuing notice to the respondents, dismissed the complaint, filed by the appellant, on the ground that the amount of Rs. 3,000/-, paid by the appellant, as fee for processing of the loan application of the appellant, being non-refundable there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant has preferred the present appeal before this Commission.

WE have carefully perused the documents/material placed on record, as well as, have heard the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties. The main contention of the appellant in the instant appeal is that the learned District Forum had wrongly assumed that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents merely because the processing fee paid by the appellant was non-refundable. Whereas the main grievance of the appellant before the District Forum was that having paid the fee to M/s. Shelters i.e., respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for processing of his loan application, no progress of the said loan application was ever intimated to the appellant either by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 i.e., M/s. Shelters or by respondent No. 3/Citi Bank N.A. nor was the loan amount sanctioned in his favour. We have carefully perused the complaint, filed by the complainant, before the District Forum, as well as, the other material on record. Though the appellant has claimed the refund of Rs. 3,000/- charged from him as processing fee for the loan applied for, the main grievance of the appellant as emerges from the submissions made before us and from the material on record is, that despite the fact that the appellant had an account with the Delhi branch of the Citi Bank N.A./respondent No. 3 and had directly approached the said branch for the sanction of a loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- under the Citi Bank Home Loan Scheme, he was directed to contact Citi Bank associate by name M/s. Shelters, who charged Rs. 3,000/- as fee for processing his loan application and assured the appellant that his loan would be sanctioned promptly and positively within a weeks time. Whereas even after a lapse of one month there was no communication regarding the fate of his application for loan, either from the said M/s. Shelters/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 or from the Citi Bank/respondent No. 3 nor was the loan as assured by the respondents 1 and 2, sanctioned in his favour. Thus in our opinion the deficiency in service alleged by the appellant had no direct relation to the processing fee being non-refundable as held by the learned District Forum. As such the appellant should have been afforded an opportunity to prove his case and his complaint should not have been dismissed at the very threshold, without even issuing notice to the opposite party. As redressal agencies under the Act we have to bear in mind that the Act is a benevolent piece of legislation enacted for the benefit and better protection of the consumers. Thus a complaint, filed by a consumer, has to be considered in totality and without regard to the technicalities and as such the grievance of the consumer has to be viewed in wider perspective to ensure that the consumer has not been taken for a ride by the service provider.

ACCORDINGLY, in the circumstances of the case, the same is remanded back to the concerned District Forum for deciding the case afresh on merits after affording both the parties an opportunity to adduce their evidence and thereafter decide the complaint as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months from the first appearance of the parties before the District Forum. The above mentioned appeal stands disposed of in above terms. Appeal disposed of.