SNEHAL DEVDATTA PATIL Vs. IDBI HOME FINANCE LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioners herein who were the complainants before the District Forum had got sanctioned a housing loan for Rs.9,50,000/- from the Respondent for purchase of two residential flats on the 3rd and 4th floors of a building which was to be constructed on a plot of land at Panvel. Subsequently the Petitioners decided to purchase only one flat being constructed on the 4th floor of the building and accordingly the loan amount for the housing loan was as mutually decided reduced to Rs.6,50,000/-. THEreafter, the Petitioners alleged that although all formalities for sanctioning the loan had been completed, Respondent did not disburse any loan amount. Petitioners informed the Respondent that 80% of the work was completed and it was thus necessary to disburse the loan because work had come to a standstill and the builder would complete the premises only if at least Rs.3 lakhs was paid to them. Respondent, on their part stated that as per the report of a Government approved surveyor, it was noted that "plaster work was under progress. Two additional floors are being constructed over existing Ground + 2 buildings, but work had stopped at present". This fact was also admitted by the Petitioners in their letter dated 17.10.2006. THE plea of the Petitioners that the work had been stopped by the builders because of shortage of funds which could have been made good if the loan sanctioned was released, was not agreed to by the Respondent on the grounds that their business is to sanction and disburse loans and not to finance the builders to complete their construction.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by this stand of the Respondent, Petitioners filed a complaint before the District Forum claiming a sum of Rs.10 lakhs as compensation along with interest @ 17% per annum from 29.02.2008 till realization. The District Forum rejected the complaint on the grounds that as per Condition No.5 of the terms and conditions on the basis of which the loan was sanctioned, the loan was to be disbursed as per the progress of work of the construction and the Respondent was well within its right not to disburse the sanctioned loan because the builder has stopped construction. It was also noted by the District Forum that Respondent had stated that it is still ready to disburse the amount of loan once the construction work is in progress.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for both parties were present at the time of admission/hearing. LEARNED counsel for Petitioners stated that it was not correct to state that the work on the 4th floor had not yet started. In fact, 80% of the construction had been completed. The surveyor of the Respondent had given a wrong report and no Commissioner has been appointed by the fora below to verify the actual position.