(Per : Justice Irshad Hussain, President):

Common questions of law and facts are involved in these appeals hence are disposed of by this order.

2. All the above named complainant-respondent applied for grant of housing loan from the appellants and deposited administrative charges and stamp-papers for execution of loan agreement with the appellants. They were sent intimation that ICICI Home Finance Company Ltd. acting as duly constituted attorney of ICICI Bank Ltd. is pleased to convey ICICI Bank’s in-principle sanction the facility on the terms and conditions set out in the communication. Later on the loan was not released in their favour, hence alleging deficiency in service the complaint were filed against the appellants for award of compensation in addition to return of the charges paid to the appellants.

3. Opposite parties-appellants contested the matter inter-alia, on the ground that the complainants did not comply with the terms of sanctioned advice for the loan proposals and the appellants have in exercise of their discretion and in accordance to their best judgments after taking into account various relevant factors decided not to finally sanction the loan to the complainants. According to them the terms and conditions of the grant of loan having not been complied by the complainants, no deficiency in service has been made and the complainants were liable to be dismissed.

4. The District Forum on consideration of the material on record of the all five cases accepted the contention of the complainants that the appellants Bank having consented to give Housing Loan subsequently refused to release the loan made deficiency in service entitling the complainants to receive compensation for mental agony and harassment apart from expenses incurred in getting the loan from the appellants. In Consumer Case No. 07/2004, the complainant Sh. Tara Dutt Muthpal was awarded compensation of Rs. 30,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till payment in addition to litigation expenses of Rs. 1500/-

5. In the Complaint Case No. 06/2004, the complainant Sh. Harish Chandra Sharma was awarded compensation of Rs. 45,000/- with interest at the above rate and cost of Rs. 1500/-.

6. In Consumer Case No. 08/2004, the complainant Sh. Charu Chandra Sharma was awarded compensation of Rs. 45,000/- together with interest as stated above and cost of Rs. 1500/-.

7. In Complaint Case No. 68/2004, the complainants Sh. Om Prakash Singh and Smt. Uma Devi (Husband and wife) were awarded compensation of Rs. 20,000/- with interest at the above rate and cost of Rs. 1500/-.

8. In Consumer Case No. 09/2004, the complainant Smt. Kulwant Kaur was awarded compensation of Rs. 2,06,400/- with interest at the above stated rate and Rs. 1500/- as cost.

9. We have heard the submission of learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. Perusal of the in-principle sanction of loan intimations sent to the complainants by the appellants clearly indicate that the sanction of the loan was subject to legal and technical clearance/verification of the property and further that the other terms and conditions detailed overleaf were also applicable to the facility. The complainants were cautioned to refer to the enclosed leaflet for the applicable conditions. The attached leaflet to the intimation contain terms and conditions and the conditions clearly imply that in the matter of the sanction of the loan the Bank shall have the discretion and act in accordance with its best judgment after taking into consideration any material fact which has been concealed and/or becomes subsequently known to it. In view of it, learned counsel for the appellants persuasively submitted that despite the intimations sent to the complainants the Housing Loan has not been finally sanctioned and released when it had been found that the complainants do not have title to the land/property on which construction of the house has been proposed and f