Rajasthan

StateCommission

CC/27/2019

Kuldeep Singh Rathore s/o Shri Shivpal Singh Rathore - Complainant(s)

Versus

Axis Bank Ltd. Through Branch Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Ashrut Sethi

18 Feb 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

COMPLAINT CASE NO:27/2019

 

Kuldeep Singh Rathore s/o Shivpal Singh Ratore r/o17,18 Mangal Vihar, Jaitavali Dhani, Mangal Jaisa Bohara, Jaipur.

Vs.

Axis Bank Ltd. through Br.Manager B-115 Ground floor, Shanti Tower, Hawa Sadak, Civil Lines, Jaipur & ors.

 

Date of Order 18.2.2019

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mrs.Meena Mehta-Member

 

Mr.Ravi Saini counsel for the complainant

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

The complaint is filed on 7.2.2019 with the contention

2

 

that the complainant is a business man. He hired the services of the bank for purchase and construction purposes. The application was submitted for the loan of Rs. 1.75 crore. He purchased two plots on 5.3.2016. The complainant was under belief that the total amount would be sanctioned. He was asked to open burgundy account which was opened in April 2016 inspite of this the total amount has not been sanctioned. Hence, relief has been asked to release the amount of Rs.50 lakhs towards the sanctioned loan and other ancillary reliefs.

 

Heard the counsel for the complainant and perused the record of the case.

 

As per Anx. 1 power home loan has been sanctioned to the complainant. Inspite of the specific query the complainant could not show the difference between power home loan and home loan.

 

The contention of the complainant is that loan was not for commercial purpose and he has purchased only a plot whereon building has to be constructed but para 4 of the complaint goes to show that he has purchased two plots. The

3

 

specific query has been asked from the counsel for the complainant to submit map and construction plan of the property which has not been submitted by the complainant reasons best known to him. In the complaint this has not been pleaded that loan was asked for residential construction and even in para no. 1 & 2 of the complaint it has not been stated that construction was for residential purpose. Per contra in Anx. 7 notice served on Axis Bank it has been mentioned that the loan was rejected on the ground that map is commercial one and in First Information Report Ex. 10 it has also been stated that loan was rejected on the ground that map was commercial one and inspite of the query the counsel for the complainant has not submitted the map of the building which shows that services were availed for commercial purposes. This fact is also strengthened by the fact that burgundy account has been opened which is primarily maintained for wealth management.

 

The complainant has submitted the judgment passed by this Commission in Complaint Case No. 31/2002 Abdul Mateen Vs. Khadi Gramodhyog Commission where issue of commercial transaction has not been decided.

 

4

 

Further reliance has been placed on the judgment passed by the National Commission in First Appeal No. 399/2008 ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. K.Venkatareddy wherein the National Commission has held that loan was not for commercial purpose which is not the case here.

 

In view of the above when transaction is for commercial purpose, the complaint is not maintainable and the same stands dismissed.

 

(Meena Mehta) (Nisha Gupta)

Member President

nm