KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL 123/2011

JUDGMENT  DATED 24.3.2011

SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN      : MEMBER

SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR          :  MEMBER            

APPELLANT

   Autoline Car World, Colour House Building,

   M.G. Road, Thrissur represented by

   Managing Partner   

                       ( Rep. by  Adv. Sri. R.S. Kalkura)                                

                                         Vs

RESPONDENT

       Asokan,

       S/o Divakaran,

       Kothandath House,

       Anthikkad P.O.,

       Thrissur District. 

JUDGMENT  

SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN      ;      MEMBER

          The appellant was the opposite party and the respondent was the complainant in O.P. 926/2001 on the file of CDRF, Thrissur.  The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in their failure to arrange loan for the complainant inspite of remitting required amount and producing necessary documents.

          The case of the complainant is that the opposite party has assured him to arrange a loan for the purchase  of a vehicle and inspite of the fact that he has remitted the required amount and produced the necessary documents,  the opposite party failed in arranging the loan. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party the complaint was filed before the Forum. 

The opposite party filed version and contended that they have made all the arrangements for getting the loan from the City bank and it was the bank which had rejected the application for want of satisfaction of the facilities for keeping the vehicle including  road facilities.  Moreover on enquiry conducted by the bank it was revealed that the complainant has no source of income to repay the loan.  So the loan application was rejected.  Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. 

          We heard the learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party.  The learned counsel argued for the position that the appellant/opposite party was acting only as agent of the respondent/complainant and it was the sole discretion of the bank either to grant loan or not to grant loan.  Moreover on enquiry conducted by the bank it was revealed that the complainant has no source of income to repay the loan.   Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  The learned counsel argued for the position that the appellant/opposite party was acting only as an agent of the respondent/complainant and it was the sole discretion of the bank either to grant loan or not to grand loan.  Moreover the respondent/complainant has not imp leaded the City Bank which is necessary party to the proceedings.  It is submitted that the entire amount paid by the respondent/complainant was refunded to him.  The counsel for the appellant attacked the direction of the Forum below to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant even without examining him.  Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part the appellant prayed for admitting the appeal.   

          It is to be noted that the appellant/opposite party has accepted the documents, cheques from the complainant for arranging the loan to him from the City Bank.  It is also observed that as per the direction of the appellant, the respondent/complainant  has remitted Rs. 1,67,000/-   He has also produced 34 cheques and towards the first installment D.D. for Rs. 13,642/- was also given.  All these would indicate that the appellant assured the respondent/complainant that on payment of 30% of the total amount appellant would arrange the balance amount from the Bank.  The appellant would argue that the formalities were complied by the appellant in time and it was the City Bank that has rejected the application.  We are not inclined to accept the said argument of the learned counsel for the appellant.  It is the bounden duty of the appellant to inform the respondent/complainant regarding the terms and conditions of the Bank for getting the loan especially when the complainant was forced to remit a pretty huge amount for availing the loan.  We find that the complainant has approached the opposite party for getting a loan and it was the opposite party who took up the service without disclosing the terms and conditions for availing the loan.  It is to be noted that the Appellant/opposite party has been arranging the loans for the parties who are in need and they have the sufficient knowledge and experience in arranging the same.  In the instant case it is found that the Appellant/opposite party took up the service without revealing the formalities for sanctioning the loan by the bank.  The Forum below has rightly appreciated the facts and evidence of the case and has passed the order finding that deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and fastened the liability to pay a compensation of Rs. 20,000/-  We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Forum below.

          In the result, the appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself. 

                           VALSALA SARANGADHARAN    ;      MEMBER

                           S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR        :       MEMBER

 ST