Mahindra Housing Rural Finance Ltd vs Nirbhay

C. Viswanath, J

The present Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Circuit Bench at Nagpur(hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in Appeal No. 14/158 dated 28.08.2018.

According to the Petitioner, the Respondent/Complainant made an application for housing loan to the Petitioner. The Respondent paid Rs.6,500/- to the Respondent on 10.12.2010 towards fees for documentation and processing. Thereafter, the Petitioner sanctioned housing loan of Rs.1 lakh in the month of February, 2011. The Respondent mortgaged the house standing in the name of his father as a security for repayment of that loan on 07.03.2011. The Petitioner disbursed loan of Rs.27,500/- as first instalment on16.04.2011 when the Respondent had already completed the foundation work of the house by spending Rs.50,000/-. The Petitioner then disbursed the second instalment of Rs.30,000/- on 05.10.2011 after receiving an interest of Rs.1,200/- on 03.10.2011 from the Respondent. The Respondent completed construction of his house in the month of January, 2012 by spending Rs.5 Lakhs.However, the Petitioner disbursed total loan of Rs.57,500/- only by the aforesaid two instalments. The Respondent was, therefore, required to obtain loan from other sources for completing the construction. The Petitioner did not disburse the balance loan amount of Rs.42,500/- , despite several requests made by the Respondent . The Respondent was also required to pay interest of Rs.2,000/- for disbursement of balance loan. Respondent was again required to pay further interest of Rs.3,000/-. Even after obtaining the interest amount also, the Petitioner did not disburse the balance loan amount. The Respondent, thereafter, made a representation to officials of the Petitioner who in turn wrote a letter dated 31.09.2012 to their Head Office, but with no response.Hence, the Respondent filed Consumer Complaint seeking direction to the Petitioner to disburse the balance loan amount of Rs.42,500/- and also pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- as balance loan was not disbursed to him in time, apart from Rs.20,000/- for mental harassment and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.

Despite service of notice, the Petitioner before the District Forum did not file his written statement. The case was, therefore, proceeded Ex-parte against the Petitioner.

The District Forum, vide order dated 20.03.2014, partly allowed the Complaint on the ground that reasons for non-disbursal of the balance of sanctioned loan amount and the allegations raised by the Respondent against the Petitioner before this Commission remain unchallenged as the Petitioner failed to appear and file his Written Statement. Thus, the allegations raised by the Respondent against the Petitioner were deemed to be admitted by the Petitioner.The Petitioner was directed to pay Rs.42,500/- and Rs.25,000/- being damages totalling Rs.67,500/- with interest @10% p.a. from the date of filing of the Complaint before it, i.e. 18.05.2013 to the Respondent. The Petitioner was further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- for physical and mental harassment and litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/- to the Respondent. The above said order was to be complied by the Petitioner within a period of 1 month form the date of receipt of the order and in case of default, at an increased rate of 15% p.a. as against 10% p.a.

Being aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the Petitioner filed an Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission, vide order dated 28.08.2018, dismissed the appeal of the Petitioner on the ground that he failed to show any document or record before the State Commission which could prove his statement that Respondent himself had refused to accept the third instalment of the housing loan and to show that he committed breach of any conditions of the housing loan agreement.

Being aggrieved by the order passed by the State Commission, the Petitioner filed the present Revision Petition before this Commission.

Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. We have also carefully gone through the evidence on record.

As per the office Report, there is a delay of 58 days in filing the present Revision Petition but no condonation of delay application has been filed by the Petitioner because according to him there was no delay in the present Petition. From the submissions made by the Petitioner, the delay in filing the present Revision Petition is condoned.

The Petitioner's contention is that two loan instalments of Rs. 1,00,000/- contracted between the Petitioner Company and the Respondent had been disbursed. The Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the loan agreement and the sanction was still valid and as per the terms of the loan agreement if the required level of construction was reached, the Company was still ready to advance the balance loan.

After carefully hearing the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as perusal of the orders and records available, we find that the Petitioner was given chance before the State Commission to prove the allegations of the Respondent wrong, but in vain. No further chance could be given to him at this stage. Ample opportunity was already given to the Petitioner to lead his defence before the State Commission, but he failed to prove his counter statements against the Respondent. He failed to produce any evidence that the Respondent refused to take the third instalment of housing loan.The State Commission regarded this as a clear breach of the conditions of the loan agreement.

In view of the above, the present Revision Petition is dismissed and the order passed by the State Commission is confirmed.