SPECIAL OFFICER Vs. D JOHN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant applied to the S. P. S. P. L. Sattur Co-operative Housing Society for loan for construction of a house. Along with his application, he submitted the sale deed, the encumbrance certificate, sketch, the mortgage deed, receipt for having paid subscription as a member of the society and legal opinion given by the legal advisor. The complainant incurred Rs.6,000/- as expenses in this regard. The society accepted the loan application and recommended the sanction of Rs.1,60,000/-and forwarded the file on 16.5.1996 to the first opposite party namely the Tamilnadu Co-operative Housing Federation Limited, Chennai. The first opposite party has failed to peruse the records and take steps to sanction the loan. The persons who applied after the complainant have been sanctioned loan. It appears that the first opposite party lost the file. Thus, there has been deficiency in service as a result of which the complainant has been put to great hardship and mental agony. Therefore, the complaint is made to recover a sum of Rs.1 lakh as compensation and for return of all the documents submitted by the complainant.

(2.) The first opposite party contended that there is no privity of contract between the first opposite party and the complainant. Since several applications are received from various societies, there is bound to be a delay. The complainant has accepted that if there is a delay that he would accept the same. The first opposite party was prepared to disburse the amount. The documents are safe with the first opposite party. Only if an application is made to second opposite party, it will be considered. There is no deficiency in service.

(3.) The second opposite party contended as follows: Even at the time he made an application the complainant has stated that he will not hold the opposite party responsible if there is a delay. The resolution sanctioning the loan was forwarded to the Federation. If there is a delay in payment of the loan on that account alone compensation can be prescribed. In spite of repeated intimation to the complainant that the money of Rs.1,60,000/- was ready for disbursement, he has failed to receive the same. Hence, the complaint be dismissed.