DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH Complaint Case No.:919 of 2009 Date of Inst: 01.07.2007 Date of Decision:15.11.2010 Anju Sharma w/o Vijay Sharma resident of House No.3056, Sector 40-D, Chandigarh. ---Complainant V E R S U S 1. Anuradha Narayanan, Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, RACPC Branch (Regional Office), Sector 17, Chandigarh. 2. Satish Kaushal, Chief Manager, RACPC Branch, State Bank of India, Sector 17, Chandigarh. 3. Sh.Sappal, RACPC Branch, State Bank of India, Sector 17, Chandigarh. ---Opposite Parties QUORUM SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SHRI ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI MEMBER SMT.MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER PRESENT: Sh.N.S.Bains, Adv. for complainant Sh.K.S.Arya, Adv. for OPs. --- PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Smt.Anju Sharma has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OPs be directed to :- i) Pay Rs.20000/- on account of deficiency in service. ii) Pay Rs.7500/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment. iii) Rs.5000/- as litigation costs. 2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 23.12.2008 she applied for education loan of Rs.9.90 lacs for higher studies of her son with the OPs. The loan was to commence from 26.01.2009. The complainant submitted all the requisite documents for processing the loan with the RACPC Branch along with the draft of Rs.5000/- and cheque of Rs.2200/- as processing charges. On 03.01.2009, when the complainant went to the Bank to enquire about the status of the loan, she came to know that the loan file had been lost and she was asked to come on 07.01.2009. On 07.01.2009, the Bank completed certain formalities and put the loan file to OP-2 who further referred the same to OP-3. According to the complainant, OP-3 instead of processing the loan case misbehaved with her and her husband. It has been pleaded that the loan was not sanctioned either before the commencement of the course or thereafter. Thereafter, the complainant made complaints vide letters dated 10.02.2009 and 19.04.2009 (Annexure C-1 and C-2) to the higher authorities to look into the matter but all in vain. According to the complainant, in the meantime, the Allahabad Bank sanctioned the loan for higher studies of her son. It has been asserted by the complainant that on 06.06.2009 OPs informed that due to objection regarding non-production of mutation of the property, the loan was not sanctioned and the said letter was accompanied with a draft of Rs.5000/-. In these circumstances, according to the complainant, non-sanctioning of the loan after completing all the formalities amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint was filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. In the reply filed by the OPs, the facts with regard to the submission of the application for sanction of education loan of Rs.9.90 lacs for higher studies of her son and deposit of bank draft of Rs.5000/- and Rs.2200/- as processing charges have been admitted by OPs. According to OPs, the complainant offered her property for equitable mortgage in order to secure the loan amount. On verification, it came to light that the mutation had not been sanctioned in the name of the complainant by the office of Sub Registrar, Derabassi. So, the complainant was informed vide letter dated 22.01.2009 and requested to remove the objections. Instead of getting the objections removed, the complainant indulged in insulting and misbehaving with the Bank Officials and started filing false complaints to the higher authorities. It has been pleaded that it was the complainant herself who failed to perform her moral and legal obligation in submitting and furnishing the complete and perfect document of title etc. as per the terms and conditions of the Bank for the purpose of education loan. In these circumstances, according to OP, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint deserves dismissal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including documents, annexures, affidavits etc. 5. The only issue to be determined in this case is that whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of Bank in not sanctioning the loan to the complainant or not? 6. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant has submitted all the documents for sanctioning the loan amount but the bank has failed to sanction the loan and rather refunded the amount of Rs.5000/- through draft No.2005030 dated 22.12.2008. On the other hand, it has been argued that it is the prerogative of the bank to sanction the loan or not. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the OPs that on processing the papers submitted by the complainant, it came to light that the mutation in respect of the mortgaged property has not been sanctioned in the name of the complainant by the office of Sub Registrar, Derabassi and therefore, the complainant was requested to remove the objections by getting the property to be mutated in her name. The complainant failed to do so. Therefore, the complainant failed to submit all the required documents. Even otherwise also, it is the prerogative of the Bank to sanction loan to the complainant or not. In our view, the Bank cannot be compelled to sanction the loan to the complainant especially when the complainant herself has failed to complete the documents for securing loan from OPs. In these circumstances, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. 7. In view of the above findings, the complainant has failed to make out any case of deficiency in service against OPs. Hence, the complainant is dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 15.11.2010 Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT cm sd/- (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI) MEMBER Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER
| | MR. A.R BHANDARI, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | | 
