CITIBANK N A Vs. AVIJIT DASGUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition, by Citibank N.A., is directed against order dated 24.09.2008 passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 870 of 2008. By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the order, dated 12.02.2008, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, K.G. Marg, New Delhi (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint No. 727 of 2003, preferred by the Respondents/Complainants. By the said order, while holding that there was deficiency in service on the part of Petitioners No. 1 to 3, in disbursing home loan to the Respondents, the District Forum had directed the Petitioners to pay to the Respondents: (i) Rs. 6000/- towards 10% penal charges, deducted for refund of the stamp papers; (ii) Rs. 3000/- towards the difference/increase in value of the stamp papers purchased; (iii) Rs. 30,000/- towards rent for the accommodation for seven months (wrongly shown as two months in the order of the District Forum); (iv) Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment as also on account of deficiency in service; and (v) Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation expenses.

(2.) In short, the case of the Respondents was that having sanctioned the housing loan in principle vide their letter dated 28.08.2004 and asking the Respondents to purchase the stamp papers for execution of the sale deed in respect of a bigger flat against which the loan had been obtained; Respondents' opting for insurance policy as desired by the Petitioners; and Petitioners' deducting EMIs against the loan, the cancellation of loan at the last moment on 22.12.2004 and jeopardizing the sale transaction amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the said Petitioners.

(3.) On consideration of the material placed before it, the District Forum was of the view that if the documents, as alleged by the Bank, were not complete or were inadequate, which was stated to be the sole reason for non-disbursement of the loan amount, the Petitioners should have immediately informed the Respondents and further without disbursing the loan amount, they should not have started deducting the EMIs from the account of the Respondents, unless it was satisfied that all the documents were complete and there was no hurdle, legal or otherwise, in release of the loan amount. Bearing in mind the fact that the Respondents had sold out their flat in anticipation of disbursement of the loan amount, sanctioned by the Petitioners vide their letter dated 28.08.2004 (page 24 of the paper-book) and consequent purchase of a bigger flat from the said loan amount, which was never disbursed to them, the District Forum held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioners. Accordingly, the Complaint was allowed, with the aforesaid directions.