Decided on September 07,2010

Icici Home Finance Company Ltd Appellant
Ashwani Kumar Joshi Respondents


- (1.) ASHWANI Kumar Joshi and his wife Smt. Madhu Joshi respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (in short "the respondents") had applied for loan facility of Rs. 1.5 lakh with the appellant Bank for purchasing a plot. They had submitted their loan application No. 777 -1324189. The said application was processed by respondent Nos.5 and 6. On their recommendation the loan was accepted by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 officials of the appellant Bank and the respondents were asked to furnish the necessary documents, namely (i) Salary Certificate, (ii) Income Tax Return Form, (iii) Identity card and (iv) PAN Card along with a cheque for Rs. 750 as processing charges. These documents were submitted by the respondents to the appellants. They had issued the sanction letter dated 25.12.2003 for advancing the loan to the extent of Rs. 1.5 lakh.
(2.) IT was further pleaded that the appellant Bank and its functionaries i.e. respondents No.5 and 6 had again called the respondents and demanded jamabandis for the last 15 years. These were also given to the appellants on 12.3.2004. Respondents No. 5 and 6 again directed the respondents to submit non -encumbrance certificate. It was also given to the appellants on 16.3.2004. Thereafter the appellant bank had taken 14 blank cheques from the respondents and they also got signed two agreement files and also took photographs from the respondents. The respondents were told that the cheque of the loan amount would be issued in their favour but in spite of that no loan was released in favour of the respondents. As a result the date stipulated in the agreement for execution of the sale deed i.e. 12.4.2004 lapsed and the respondents suffered the loss to the tune of Rs. 30,000. Hence the complaint for compensation to the tune of Rs. 80,000. Costs were also prayed.
(3.) THE appellants filed the written reply. It was not denied that the appellants had sanctioned the loan in favour of the respondents but it was subject to legal and technical clearance/verification and further satisfaction of the authorities of the appellants. It was admitted that the loan was not released to the respondents but it was for the reason that as per the policy and procedure of the appellants no loan is advanced for the purchase of the property unless and until the original title deeds/sale deeds of the intended seller was produced. In the present case, the property was to be purchased by the respondents from Harchand Singh and his wife Rajwinder Kaur. The respondents, however, failed to produce the sale deed/title deed of their vendors for which the loan could not be released to the respondents. It was further pleaded that the cheque for Rs. 750 was paid by the respondents to the appellants as the processing fee which was non -refundable. It was denied if there was any deficiency in service on the part of the appellants or respondents No. 3 to 6. Hence dismissal of the complaint was prayed.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.