BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
BANGALORE (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022
PRESENT
MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 454/2017
Smt. Mythili Ramachandra Hegde, D/o Sri H.P. Sridhara Murthy, No.1865, 1st Main Road, 2nd Stage, Kumaraswamy Layout, Bangalore 560 078. (By Sri S. Raghu) | ……Appellant/s |
V/s
M/s Axis Bank Ltd., Retail Asset Centre, No.08, 3rd Floor, “SONA TOWERS”, 32nd ‘E’ Cross, 4th ‘T’ Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore 560 041, Rep. by its Branch Manager. (By Sri V. Suresh) | |
ORDER
MR. RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. The appellant/complainant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dt.12.01.2017 passed in CC.No.1443/2013 on the file of 4th Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru.
2. The brief facts of the case are as hereunder;
It is the case of the complainant she approached the Opposite Party bank in the year December 2012 for sanction of loan of Rs. 22,08,982/- for the purpose of purchasing residential flat. After scrutiny of the application, legal and technical clearance, they have sanctioned loan vide letter dt.06.12.2012. Subsequently on 11.12.2012 the panel advocate of the Opposite Party bank have received scrutiny report. After that the complainant entered into an agreement for purchase of the residential property and paid an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- and executed an agreement to sell. Thereafter, the Opposite Party not dispensed the loan amount inspite of repeated requests. Subsequently, the Opposite Party declined to dispense the loan amount as assured after sanction, hence, alleged deficiency in service and filed a complaint before the District Commission. After trial, the District Commission dismissed the complaint for the reason that the Opposite Party has not sanctioned the loan and it is a discretionary power either to sanction loan or not which cannot be questioned by the complainant and held that there is no deficiency in service, hence, dismissed the complaint.
3. Aggrieved by the said Order, the appellant/ complainant is in appeal. The appellant filed written arguments. Heard the arguments of respondent.
4. The appellant submits that the respondent issued a sanctioned letter after technical and legal clearance and assured to dispense the loan amount of Rs.22,08,982/- on or before 17.01.2013, but, for one or the other reason the respondent did not dispense the loan due to which the appellant constrained to cancel the loan agreement and suffered financial loss. But the District Commission without considering the said facts dismissed the complaint, hence, prayed to set aside the order passed by the District Commission and allowed the complaint by directing the Opposite Party to pay Rs.9,58,300/- for the loss suffered by the appellant.
5. On going through the memorandum of appeal, certified copy of the order of the District Commission and the documents produced before us, we noticed here that the appellant with an intention to purchase the residential property approached the respondent for financial assistance, accordingly, on 06.12.2012 the respondent bank issued a letter of sanction for loan amount of Rs.22,08,982/-. Subsequently the respondent bank has declined to sanction the loan for the reasons that the prospective borrower has to prove his credibility on financially, legally and technically to substantiate the soundness integrity and credit worthiness and also stated that they have not sanctioned the loan infact they have issued a letter for sanction of the loan, hence, submits no deficiency in service. The District Commission appreciated the said fact and dismissed the complaint. We are of the opinion that if any bank refuses to sanction the loan or disburse the loan, the said rejection does not fall under the purview of deficiency in service. The sanction of the loan or not to sanction of the loan is purely discretionary on the part of the bank. In this case, the complainant has received a letter dt.06.12.2012 is not a loan sanctioned letter it is only a pre-loan sanctioned letter and they have provided 180 days from the date of the said letter of clearance and to provide details sought by the bank. Hence, we found that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. The District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint holding that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/ Opposite Party bank. There is no merit in the appeal. Hence, the following;
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
Forward free copies to both parties.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
KCS*
