In a recent ruling by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh, Axis Bank was found negligent in their services concerning a housing loan case. The presiding members, Justice Raj Shekhar Attri and Mr Rajesh K. Arya, ordered the bank to refund the processing fee and compensate the complainant with Rs. 25,000/-. This decision came after the complainant encountered a number of obstacles and delays in his loan process, which eventually led to the loss of his earnest money.
The complainant, Mr. Ashok Kumar, had applied for a housing loan from Axis Bank. He provided all the necessary documentation and paid a processing fee of Rs. 2950/-. The bank assured him that the loan process would be completed in 15 days, well before the land registration deadline of July 5, 2021. Unfortunately, he faced numerous roadblocks, including requests for additional proof of his local address. Despite his best efforts to fulfill the bank’s requirements, he was eventually informed that the loan could not be granted due to issues identifying the property, resulting in the forfeiture of his earnest money.
The bank responded by stating that the financial sanction for the loan had been approved on July 12, 2021, based on Mr. Kumar’s financial credentials. However, they claimed that the disbursement of the loan required the submission of property documents within 180 days and subsequent legal and technical verification. The bank asserted that the property in question was not identifiable on-site and did not meet the necessary legal and technical criteria for loan disbursement.
The District Commission dismissed Mr. Kumar’s complaint, stating that he failed to provide concrete evidence to counter the bank’s claim. In response, Mr. Kumar challenged this decision in the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, arguing that the District Commission had overlooked the bank’s promises and failed to consider their lack of communication regarding the reasons for non-disbursal and the delayed disclosure of terms and conditions.
The State Commission, after reviewing the case, found that the bank had failed to clarify the property disclosed by Mr. Kumar and provide details of the verification process. They held that the bank was responsible for proving that the property did not meet the necessary criteria for loan disbursal. The bank, however, claimed that the original file had been disposed of as per their document destruction process.
The State Commission found this lack of documentation suspicious, particularly in a digital era where financial institutions often store documents electronically. They held that the bank, despite charging a processing fee and sanctioning the loan, failed to keep Mr. Kumar informed about the loan disbursal and property verification status.
This ruling underlines the importance of clear communication and transparency in banking practices, especially when it comes to loan approvals and rejections. It also serves as a reminder to financial institutions about their duty of care towards their customers.
would you kindly mention the case details like case number or anything