BANK OF BARODA Vs. JAYPRAKASH R. KUSHWAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner No.1/Opposite Party No.1 challenging the impugned Order dtd. 24/4/2017 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai in RBT/A/15/874. Vide such Order, the State Commission dismissed the Appeal while upholding the order dtd. 22/8/2014 passed by the District Consumer Complaint Redressal Forum, Thane in Consumer Complaint No. 331/2008.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant was in need of a house and the Opposite Party No. 3 was willing to sell his Flat No. 202, New Neel Angar Housing Society, Nallasopara having an area of 414 sq. ft. Consequently, an amount of Rs.4,00,000.00 was decided as the consideration for the flat and a registered agreement was executed on 12/3/2007. At the time of entering into the Agreement, the Complainant paid Rs.87,000.00 to Opposite Party No.3 and the balance Rs.3,13,000.00 was to be paid by acquiring a loan from the bank, which was agreed by both the above stated parties.

(3.) It was averred by the Complainant that he had approached Opposite Party No. 1 before execution and registration of the Agreement, with the available documents, to acquire a loan of Rs.3,13,000.00 and the Opposite Party No. 1 informed the Complainant that the flat was required to be mortgaged and for that purpose, the Agreement should be registered, only after which the loan amount could be disbursed. On the basis of the available documents submitted by the Complainant, a pre Sanction Letter dtd. 8/2/2007 was issued to the Complainant. Based on the pre Sanction Letter, the Complainant executed the Agreement for sale, and paid the margin amount of Rs.87,000.00 to the Opposite Party. It is further submitted that the Opposite Party no.1 instructed the Complainant to approach Opposite Party No.2 for further processing of the loan. The Complainant consequently submitted the Application form along with all the documents to the Opposite Party No.2, and thereafter on scrutiny of all the documents, the loan was sanctioned vide Approval Letter dtd. 12/4/2007. It was further averred that the Complainant was informed that the amount shall be disbursed in the name of Opposite Party No. 3. It was further claimed that the Complainant had also paid the processing fees and other necessary expenses and amount required for mortgage of flat to the Opposite Party No.2.