A.K.ANNAMALAI, J. - (1.) The opposite parties are the appellants.
(2.) The complainant/respondent filed a complaint against the opposite parties claiming for direction to pay the compensation of Rs.1 lakh for mental agony and pain, Rs.45,910/- along with interest as repayment for the expenses spent for availing the loan and Rs.500/- for the legal notice and Rs.5,000/- as litigation costs.3. The complainant applied for housing loan of Rs.4,50,000/- in the opposite parties Cooperative Bank and they sanctioned only Rs.3,90,000/- and even after 20 months after sanction, they have not released the loan amount for construction and thereby he had already paid Rs.35,910/- to the opposite parties for getting the loan and spent another sum of Rs.10,000/- towards obtaining the plan, Blue Print and other documents. Hence, he has issued a legal notice on 21.12.2005 and the first opposite party alone issued reply notice and thereby the complainant filed the consumer case for the relief as stated above.4. The first opposite party denying the allegations by stating that even though the complainant was sanctioned with housing loan and necessary deeds were obtained since the NABARD Bank has not released the funds from that time till today, the loan could not be disbursed and from April 2004, the NABARD Bank also stopped the funds for housing loan and thereby there is no deficiency of service and the complainant can claim the share capital amount of Rs.19,500/- and encumbrance certificate fees by way of refund and not entitled for any interest and for any other costs. 5. The District Forum after an enquiry allowed the complaint, directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and to repay Rs.21,225/- individually or jointly with 9% interest from the date of payment and to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards costs.6. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite parties filed the appeal before this Commission and in the grounds of appeal, it is contended that the funding agency had not provided the funds to the opposite parties towards the house loan and thereby, the loan was not released to the complainant and the opposite parties are functioning subject to the prevailing policies of the Government and RBI and NABARD and thereby appeal is to be allowed.7. In this appeal, both sides have admitted that the housing loan of Rs.3,90,000/- sanctioned by the opposite parties was not released even after more than 20 months from the date of transaction, in spite of formalities for the loan were all completed by the complainant. It is the case of the opposite parties that the loan amount is to be released as soon as the amount was received from the NABARD Authorities, which is lending bank for their dealings and transactions and the complainant executed documents only on 30.3.2004 at the verge of the closing of financial year 31.3.2004 and all the loans and advance will be disbursed before 31.3.2004 and thereby the complainant was disentitled for the housing loan on that date and the funding agency NABARD Bank had stopped refinance to the Cooperative Banks from April 2004 and as such there was no funds available for disbursing and thereby there was no deficiency of service. This contentions of the opposite parties are acceptable and when the opposite parties are functioning under the control of State Government and under the terms and conditions of RBI and other financing or lending banks when the funds are not available for the sanctioned loan, it is not their fault, for blaming the same, which cannot be considered as negligence or deficiency and thereby the complainant?s case cannot be sustained on those grounds. In this case, there was no sanction of loan and no service was rendered to the complainant by way of releasing the loan to the complainant even though certain formalities were observed as per the rules and guidelines, which cannot be construed as a base for any consideration or service rendered by the opposite parties and thereby the complainant cannot be considered as consumer under Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act as service rendered by the opposite parties and thereby the complaint is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum. In those circumstances, the appeal is to be allowed by setting aside the order of the District Forum. 8. In the result, appeal is allowed, the order of the District Forum in C.C.26/2006, dt. 31.01.2008 is set aside, and the complaint is dismissed. There will be no order as to cost, throughout.9. The Registry is directed to handover the Fixed Deposit Receipt, made towards the mandatory deposit, to the appellants/ opposite parties duly discharged, since appellants succeeded, and there is no need to retain the FDR.;