Punjab

Sangrur

RBT/CC/249/2018

PhoolPati - Complainant(s)

Versus

Andhra Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh P K Lomis

22 Dec 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

 

                                                                        Complaint No. RBT/CC/249

 Instituted on:   05.07.2018

                                                                         Decided on:     22.12.2021

Phoolpati wife of Ramehar resident of Lakhwali Basti, Tehsil Patran, District Patiala.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.     Andhra Bank Branch, through its Manager, Branch Patran namely Amrik Singh.

2.     Head Office, Andhra Bank office, 11148/5, Near 22 No. Phatak, Fly Over, Bank Colony, Patiala through its Manager.

             ….Opposite parties

For the complainant    : Shri Pardeep Kumar, Adv.              

For OP No.1              : Shri Arunjit Singh Verma, Adv.

For OP No.2              : Exparte.

 

Quorum                                           

S.P. Sood, President

Sarita Garg, Member

ORDER BY:     

S.P.Sood, President:

1.             This complaint has been received by transfer from District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patiala in view of orders of Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh vide endorsement number 10226 of 26.11.2021.

2.             Smt. Phoolpati (hereinafter to be referred as ‘complainant’) has filed this complaint alleging inter-alia that since she was in  need of Rs.10,00,000/-, therefore, in the month of May, 2017 complainant alongwith her husband approached OP number 1 as she intended to raise a loan against her property.  After this development, OP number 1 which comprises of Andhra Bank Branch sued through its Manager, Shri Amrik Singh instructed her (complainant) to produce several documents relating to her property, such as its sale deed etc. and her own aadhar car, PAN card, bank statement, approved site plan and some other connecting things.  Further complainant has alleged that it was only at the behest of OP number 1 that complainant moved to get the site plan of her house approved from Nagar Council, Patran and deposited Rs.25,289/- on 10.7.2017 being the requisite fee for the same. Even she was also directed to get her above said property evaluated from the quarters concerned. This is how when complainant approached OP number 1 with all these documents latter assured her that requisite loan of Rs.10.00 Lacs will be sanctioned to her shortly as OP number 1 has already sent her case for approval to higher authorities of the bank. Further complainant has also alleged that it was only as per asking of OP number 1 bank Manager that she approached office of Rajinder Garg, authorized agent of OP number 1 for obtaining non-encumbrance certificate qua her property and paid him Rs.15,000/- for allowing her the said certificate on 19.6.2017.  Thereafter complainant again alleged that she was directed to meet one Lovely Garg, the so called mediator without whose indulgence this loan will not be sanctioned in her favour and when as per advice of OP number 1, complainant approached said Shri Lovely Garg, latter asked her to pay him Rs.15,000/- out of which Rs.10000/- will go to OP number 1, Manager, whereas remaining Rs.5000/- alongwith another amount to the extent of 6% of the total sanctioned loan amount will be pocketed by him.  Somehow or the other when complainant met OP number 1 and disclosed about the said advice put across to her by Lovely Garg then OP number 1 also advised her to meet with the demands of said Lovely Garg in case she was desirous of getting this loan. Even complainant complied with the said desires put forth by Lovely Garg by paying him Rs.15,000/- in the presence of her relatives. Thereafter when complainant approached OP number 1 with the hope that since she had already complied with all the formalities, so there should not have been any hitch in sanctioning of her loan but again to her utter surprise that OP number 1 came out with a plea that her case could not get approval from the higher authorities but they can still do the favour to her by sanctioning similar loan to some of her other family member. Thereafter complainant proposed to get the above said loan in favour of her daughter-in-law Akanksha and also submitted various documents pertaining to her daughter-in-law to OP number 1, but again without any avail.  However, during this entire exercise, complainant suffered huge financial loss to the tune of Rs.3,50,000/- and also faced mental harassment. Besides, complainant had to shell out for various documentation and despite all this when no loan was disbursed to her then she felt bad and humiliated. Finding no way other out complainant got served a legal notice upon Ops on 8.6.2018 through her counsel Shri Pardeep Kumar, Advocate but again nothing tangible happened in this regard.  After complainant failed to achieve the desired results, her husband had also moved a written application before the then Member of Parliament Shri Dharamveer Gandhi and also moved written complaint before the then Hon’ble Prime Minister of India, Hon’ble Chief Minister of Punjab and also was instrumental in getting the news item published in the vernacular daily highlighting the misconduct on the part of OP number 1 but still when no such headway was made in this regard despite Ops having been clearly deficient in their services towards complainant then she was left with no other alternative except to file this complaint seeking directions for the Ops to reimburse the financial loss suffered by her and also seeking directions from the court to OP number 1 for paying Rs.70,000/- alongwith interest @ 14% per annum and Rs.33,000/- as cost of litigation.

3.             Upon notice, Op number 1 contested this complaint on the ground that how the complainant could never allege herself to be a consumer qua answering Ops and further this complaint was assailed on the grounds of maintainability, cause of action and locus standi and even the same was alleged to be bad for non joinder of the necessary parties. Further it was also averred that complainant was not competent to file the present complaint because neither she herself single handedly nor she alongwith her husband have ever approached Ops for raising any loan. Even complainant does not hold any bank account with the answering OP.  That being so, how she could allege herself to be a consumer vis-à-vis that of Ops as there is no legal relationship between them at all.  Further it was also averred that since neither complainant nor anyone else had ever visited the office of OP, so how latter ever could have any occasion for advising her to approach them with several documents relating to her property and how she could ever be directed by the OP to get a site plan prepared and ultimately approved from Nagar Council of the town, therefore, the question of complainant having paid a sum of Rs.25,289/- on 10.07.2017 as a requisite fee for getting approval of the site plan from municipal authorities at his behest does not arise. In the same context, it was also averred that in the normal circumstances, if a person wants to avail any loan facility then such a person requires to open a bank account in the branch and thereafter he/she is required to bring the requisite documents from which the bank has to ascertain feasibility, entitlement, repayment capacity of the borrower.  It is only after the latter happen to fulfill all these requirements alongwith various terms and conditions for getting the said loan  only then the matter is sent for legal opinion of the empanelled advocate in the said branch and then after obtaining valuation report the entire process for disbursing of the loan amount is carried out.  It was also disclosed that Shri Arunjit Singh Verma, Advocate is empanelled Advocate of the answering OP, banker for the whole of the Patran town and that being the case OP never directed complainant to approach said Mr. Verma.  Likewise, it was also averred that when complainant never supplied any such document then how was it possible for OP number 1 to assure her that her loan will be sanctioned in few days.  Moreover, since the loan requirement as pointed out by complainant was for Rs.10.00 Lacs and as OP number 1 being the Branch Manager was competent enough to grant and sanction the loan upto Rs.35.00 Lacs, so there was no need for OP number 1 to send her case to the higher authorities of the bank. So, when neither complainant nor any one else on her behalf and ever approached him, so there was no question of OP number 1 to send her case.  Further OP number 1 also emphatically denied of complainant having approached Rajinder Garg alleging himself to be his agent, rather OP number 1 being a public servant has no authority to appoint any person in this capacity.  Similarly, complainant was never directed to approach Lovely Garg, alleging him to be a mediator and also denied complainant having paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- out of which Rs.10,000/- was being received by OP number  1 on Manager’s behalf and alongwith this another amount to the extent of 6% of the total sanctioned loan amount was also to be pocketed by him. Besides this, other averments of the complaint were also denied and before conclusion it was also averred that when there was no proposal for raising any loan by the complainant so the question of his having refused the same did not arise.  Other averments of the complaint were also denied emphatically and ultimately prayer for dismissal of complaint was made.

4.             After completion of pleadings both the parties were called upon to produce their oral and documentary evidence. During this process, complainant tendered her sworn affidavit Ex.C-A alongwith this she also tendered photocopy of sale deed vide which she had purchased 4.5 marla of land from its previous owner on 23.9.2013 as Ex.C-1, her aadhar card as Ex.C-2, PAN card Ex.C-3,  copy of cancelled passbook without bearing the name or account number of Andhra Bank Ex.C-4, site plan Ex.C-5, approval accorded to complainant dated 18.7.2017 Ex.C-5, receipt showing complainant having paid Rs.25,289/- on 10.7.2017 Ex.C-6, non-encumbrance certificate issued from Sewa Kendra old Tehsil Office, Patran Ex.C-7, legal notice Ex.C-8, postal receipts Ex.C-9 and Ex.C-10, copy of written complaint moved before the then Member of Parliament Patiala by the husband of complainant Ex.C-11 and copy of complaint moved to Deputy Commissioner, Patiala Ex.C-12 and another complaint addressed to Hon’ble Chief Minister of Punjab Ex.C-13 and news item Ex.C-14.

5.             On the other hand, OP number 1 has tendered on record sworn affidavit of Amrik Singh as Ex.OP-A and empanelment certificate issued by OP bank in favour of Shri Arunjit Singh Verma Advocate on 12.4.2016 was tendered as Ex.OP-1.

6.             We have heard contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through various documents with their valuable assistance.

7.             Despite complainant having raised a lot of hue and cry the foremost objection of the Ops is that as to how complainant can alleged herself to be a consumer qua Ops  well the above said objection seems to have merit because neither complainant holds any account with the OP bank nor she has ever alleged to have deposited any amount with the Ops in lieu  of the latter rendering any services to her.  Clarifying this matter further, complainant is not found to have any saving or current account with the OPs for which she could considered to be a consumer with regard to them. No doubt, complainant has alleged that she had to spend a lot for procuring various documents which might have been required by her for raising a loan but again all these amounts which she had to incur for either obtaining non-encumbrance certificate or for getting the site plan approved from Nagar Council, Patran, the same all these amounts were not paid by complainant to Ops for which we could say that complainant availed some services from OP number 1.  Moreover, so far as other allegations which complainant has raised regarding the illegal demand raised by the said Shri Lovely Garg alleged agent of the Ops or by that of some other person with the name of Rajinder Garg are concerned, the amount which allegedly was paid by complainant to Rajinder Garg for obtaining non-encumbrance certificate but as is evident from this non-encumbrance certificate it is issued by Sub Registrar, Patran, as such, if the complainant had paid any fee for the same then the same must have been realized by the said Sewa Kendra, as we all know is a government functionary. Likewise, if any money much less of Rs.15,000/- was paid by complainant to Lovely Garg out of which Rs.10,000/- were made for OP number 1 and remaining Rs.5000/- for Lovely Garg, even then this amount is not shown to have been paid to OP number 1 much less Andhra Bank branch itself and further there is nothing to support this contention.  So, for all these reasons when complainant is not found to have paid anything from her side to the OP bank how complainant can allege herself to be a consumer of Ops. Even otherwise also, if we go through the contents of the complaint in the context of some documents relied upon by complainant, such as Ex.C-11 to Ex.C-14 we find  perhaps complainant has treated this Forum/Commission to be some platform where she could raise objections against misdeeds of some public officials, well we must say that if complainant nourished some feelings at any point of time may be either at the time of filing this complaint then she was grossly misguided by some irresponsible people.  This is a place where rights and duties vis-à-vis each other are evaluated that too in case there exists a legal relationship between consumer and service provider between both of them.   When no such relationship ever existed between the complainant on one hand and the OPs on the other, then how conduct of Ops could ever be weighed to a deficient in services or any such unfair trade practice having been adopted by them.  All other documents clearly convey altogether different thing quite distinct and different from the contention of complainant that the same were procured by complainant for the purpose of raising loan from OP number 1. There is not even iota of evidence for which we could say complainant ever approached OP number 1 and produced these documents before him for processing her loan case when complainant herself is not found to be an account holder, so why Ops will ever ask her to come with these documents so that her loan case could be processed. So, for all these reasons, we are not inclined to believe the contention put forth by complainant as we don’t see any deficiency on the part of Ops, so the present complaint is found to be utterly devoid of any merit and the same stands dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

8.             A certified copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to records.

                                Pronounced.

 

                                December 22, 2021.

 

                                     (Sarita Garg)                   (S.P. Sood)

                 Member                      President