ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH

Jaswinder Singh aged 37 years, Son of Bawa Singh, Resident of Village Mastgarh, P.O. Mullanpur, Sub Tehsil Majri, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar.

……Appellant/complainant

V e r s u s

1. The Chief Managing Director, Bank of India, Head Office, C-5, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex East, Mumbai-400051.

2. The Chief Manager, Bank of India, SCO No.290-291, Sector 32-D, Chandigarh-160020.

..Respondents/opposite parties

BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

MR.PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER

Present:-

Sh.Ullas Kapoor, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh.Vivek Dawar, Advocate for the respondents.

PER JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of the award already passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the District Commission), in consumer complaint no.362 of 2024, whereby, while partly allowing it, opposite parties/respondents were directed as under:-

“…..In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs are directed as under :-

(i). to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;

(ii). to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

This order be complied with by the OPs jointly and severally within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the amount(s) mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above shall carry penal interest @ 12% per annum (simple) from the date of expiry of said period of 45 days, till realisation, over and above payment of ligation expenses

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off….”

2. Before the District Commission, it was the case of the complainant that his father Bawa Singh owned a plot measuring 4.75 marlas situated at Village Mastgarh, Sub Tehsil Majri, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar. The complainant intended to construct a residential house on the said property and approached the Opposite Parties for grant of a housing loan of Rs.20,00,000/-. It was alleged that the officials of the Opposite Parties directed the complainant to complete certain formalities including transfer of the property in his name, obtaining valuation report from a bank approved valuer, legal opinion from bank panel advocate, non-encumbrance certificate and other documentation. Acting upon the instructions of the Bank, the complainant got the property transferred in his name through a registered transfer deed dated 29.06.2022 and also incurred expenses in completing other formalities. It was further averred that after completion of the said formalities, the Opposite Parties issued letter dated 30.12.2022 (Annexure C-6) to the Tehsildar, Majri, stating that the complainant had been financed a housing loan of Rs.9.50 lakhs and a term loan of Rs.9.50 lakhs totaling Rs.19.00 lakhs and requested creation of charge of the Bank on the property. On the basis of the said letter, the lien of the Bank was recorded in the revenue record. However, despite repeated requests, the loan amount was never disbursed to the complainant and ultimately the lien was vacated thereafter. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant filed the consumer complaint before the District Commission.

3. The Opposite Parties contested the complaint and denied that any loan was ever sanctioned to the complainant. It was pleaded that the complainant had only approached the Bank to enquire about the procedure for housing loan and was informed about the necessary requirements. It was further stated that the branch office had no authority to sanction housing loan above Rs.10 lakhs, as such sanction could only be granted by the Retail Business Centre. The Opposite Parties admitted issuance of th