Complainant/petitioner with an intention to purchase a jeep for running the same as TAXI to eke out his livelihood applied for a loan of Rs.2,05,000/- from the bank respondent no.1 on 31.02.1993.  According to the complainant, he had deposited Rs.1,15,000/- on 22.12.1993 with the respondent along with an application form and quotation of jeep and details of immovable property offered by him as security and also two sureties for availing the loan but the loan was not sanctioned.  Because of the delay caused by the respondent, the

-2-

cost of the jeep was enhanced to Rs.2,46,356/- w.e.f. 01.03.1994.  Petitioner requested the respondent bank to sanction additional loan of the difference of the price, i.e. Rs.41,356/- which was not sanctioned, as a result of which he could not buy the jeep as he was not in a position to meet the additional cost of Rs.41,356/-.

          Respondent bank on being served entered appearance and filed Written Statement.  According to the respondent, petitioner was himself responsible for the delay; the loan was sanctioned to him on 16.02.1994 and the said fact was intimated to him and he was asked to execute the necessary documents essential for the purpose of disbursement of loan but he came to the respondent branch along with two sureties and executed the documents on 28.02.1994 and on the same day the loan was disbursed to him.  Respondent bank then asked the petitioner to apply for a sanction of additional loan of Rs.41,356/- so that the same could be forwarded to the Zonal Office.  Petitioner did not do so.

          District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent bank to pay a sum of Rs.1 Lac to the petitioner by way of

-3-

damages including Rs.25,000/- already paid to the petitioner together with costs of Rs.1,000/-.

          Petitioner as well as the respondent bank filed cross appeals before the State Commission.  The State Commission by the impugned order dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and allowed the appeal filed by the respondent bank with the following observations:

  “…………The learned counsel for the bank submitted that the District Forum did not take into consideration that the complainant had applied for E.C. on 19.02.1994 and the same was given to him by SRO on 25.2.1994 (Ex.B9) and thereafter the complainant created equitable mortgage on 26.02.1994 and executed loan documents on 28.1.1994 and thereafter DDs were delivered on 28.2.1994 and this clearly establishes that there is no delay on the part of the bank or the bank officials in processing the loan application.  He further submitted that the District Forum misdirected the enquiry and ignored all these events.  Ex. B13 is the letter issued by the appellant bank which clearly states that the bank will not be responsible for any variation in the price of the jeep.  It is also pertinent to note that the complainant has encashed the demand drafts issued by the appellant bank.  He further submitted that it is also not obligatory for the

-4-

appellant bank to sanction additional loan of Rs.41,356/- due in increase in price in spite of this the bank agreed to consider the proposal for additional loan but the complainant has not applied for the same as is evident from Ex.B26.  The learned counsel for the appellant bank submitted that the District Forum failed to take all these facts and has come to an erroneous conclusion that there was delay on the part of the appellant bank.  We find force in these submissions…………”

          From the perusal of the facts, it is evident that the loan of the petitioner was sanctioned on 16.02.1994.  Petitioner was asked to execute the necessary documents essential for the purpose of disbursement of the loan.  Petitioner submitted the papers on 19.02.1994 and the same was given to him by SRO on 25.02.1994.  Equitable mortgage was created on 26.02.1994.  Loan documents were executed on 28.02.1994.  From these facts it is clear that there was no delay on the part of the respondent in disbursing the loan to the petitioner.  On 01.03.1994 price of the jeep was enhanced to Rs.2,46,356/-.  Respondent in his letter B-13 clearly stated that the bank will not be responsible for any variation in the price of the jeep.  Petitioner encashed the Demand Drafts issued by the respondent. 

-5-

Though it was not obligatory on the part of the respondent to sanction additional loan of Rs.41,356/- due to increase in the price of the jeep, but still the respondent bank agreed to consider the proposal for additional loan, but the petitioner did not apply for the same.  Under the circumstances, the State Commission has rightly come to the conclusion that the respondent bank was not deficient, in any way, in disbursing the loan or in rendering services to the petitioner.  No ground for interference is made out.  Dismissed.