(1.) aggrieved of the impugned order dated 9.8.2004 passed by District Forum whereby it has been directed to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation, Rs.3,000/- as cost of litigation besides refund of the processing fee charged by appellant for sanctioning the house loan to the respondent, the appellant has preferred this appeal as the compensation has been granted on account of deficiency in service inasmuch as that in spite of having sanctioned the housing loan of Rs.5,50,000/- on 20.6.2003, the appellant did not disburse the same.
(2.) Admittedly, the respondent applied for a loan pursuant to advertisement publised by the appellant in Daily Newspaper, the Hindustan Times that if any person applied for house loan between 14.6.2003 to 21.6.2003, the loan will be sanctioned at the rate of interest i. e.8.25% p. a. and no processing fee will be charged on the sanctioned loan amount. Respondent applied for loan of Rs.5,50,000/- and was sanctioned on the next date 20.6.2003. The respondent has entered into an agreement for the purchase of a house and paid Rs.2,00,000/-, out of which Rs.1,10,000/- was paid by way of cheque and Rs.90,000/- in cash. In spite of persistent requests and written communications the appellant did not disburse the loan and in the process, the vendor forfeited her earnest money. It is not in dispute that the appellant did not inform the respondent till 4.8.2003 about the reasons for not disbursing the housing loan in spite of the fact that respondent was in regular touch with the appellant and the appellant had assured him time and again that the loan will be disbursed prior to 31.7.2003. It was on 4.8.2003 when the Credit Manager of the appellant orally informed the respondent that the loan cannot be disbursed because the area where the property was sought to be purchased by the respondent was a negative area for disbursing the loan.
(3.) The deficiency in service is writ large as the appellant was required to immediately inform the respondent even if the loan was sanctioned that though the loan has been sanctioned but it cannot be disbursed as the area was a negative area that respondent should not have entered into agreement for purchase of the house and paid Rs.2,00,000/-. No provider of service including the Bank who gives housing loan on interest can keep the consumer in dark and in suspended animation. Such a conduct or approach of a provider of service does cause mental agony and harassment. By not informing the consumer about the reasons for non-disbursement of the sanctioned loan for such a long time the appellant has committed the mischief of 'deficiency in Service'. The foregoing reasons persuade us to dismiss the appeal in limine being devoid of merits. A copy of this order, as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties, free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to the Record Room. Anounced on this 10th day of November, 2004. Appeal dismissed.