P C CHANDAN Vs. SHELTERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This complaint arises under Sec.36a of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs.15,000/- along with his application for loan with the respondent through his Credit Card (City Bank) No.3655-967572-5009. The said amount was debited in his Card Account on 19.8.1996. The main grievance of the complainant is that the respondent did not take any steps to process the application for grant of loan. The respondent has filed reply and has taken the plea that the complainant had entered into a contract with the respondent wherein it was specifically provided "in lieu of the services rendered in preparing and processing the loan application, Shelter seeks remuneration @ Rs. fifteen thousand only payable at the time of execution of this agreement, which shall be non-refundable under all circumstances".

(2.) We have heard learned Counsels for the parties. In case the complainant was not eligible for loan merely on the ground that he was 63 years of age, the respondent ought not to have accepted his application and taken the deposit thereon. This indeed amounts to unfair trade practice because before entering into such transaction the basic condition for grant of loan is required to be known to the person. In view of the facts stated above the complainant is entitled for refund of the deposited amount alongwith interest. The respondent shall refund the amount of Rs.15,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of deposit within four weeks from today. The present complaint is allowed and disposed of. There is no order as to costs. Complaint allowed.