Haryana

StateCommission

CC/38/2015

HARMINDER SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

AXIS BANK - Opp.Party(s)

ANIRUDH KUSH

02 Jun 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                 

Complaint No     :         38 of 2015

Date of Institution:       13.04.2015

Date of Decision :        02.06.2016

 

 

 

Harminder Singh son of Shri Karam Singh, resident of House No.29/V, PTPS Colony, Panipat, Haryana.

                                      …………Complainant

 

Versus

 

 

1.      AXIS Bank Limited, Sector 7, Karnal, Haryana through its Branch Manager.

 

2.      AXIS Bank Limited, Trishul, 3^rd Floor, Opposite Samartheshwar Temple, Law Garden Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad, Gujrat through its Managing Director.

                                      ………Opposite Parties

 

 

 

 

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

 

 

 

 

Present:               Shri Anirudh Kush, Advocate for Complainant.

                             Shri Amar Singh and Shri Gaurav Gupta, Advocates for the opposite parties assisted by Ms. Megha Ahluwalia, Area Operations Head, AXIS Bank.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

 

                       

          Harminder Singh-complainant has filed the instant complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 averring that he retired as XEN, Haryana Power Generation Corporation.  While in service, he applied for loan of Rs.26,50,000/- against the property from AXIS Bank Limited, Sector 7, Karnal-opposite party No.1 (for short, ‘Bank’).  Vide letter dated October 14^th, 2014 (Exhibit OP-1) loan of Rs.26,50,000/- was sanctioned.  The grievance of the complainant is that the bank did not disburse the amount inspite of its sanction.   By filing this complaint, complainant is seeking direction to the Bank to disburse the loan amount as per the sanction letter (Exhibit OP-1) and to pay Rs.2,00,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment and Rs.25,000/- litigation expenses. 

2.      The Bank in its reply stated that loan was sanctioned but it was not disbursed because in the report of Credit Information Bureau of India Limited (CIBIL), complainant had obtained loan of Rs.7,00,000/- Rs.3,95,000/-, Rs.10,30,000/-, Rs.6,00,000/- and as such, was asked to produce the No Objection Certificate from the banks/financial institutions from where he had obtained the loan but he did not produce the same.

3.      Harminder Singh-complainant appeared as CW1.  In his statement, he stated that he had not taken any loan of Rs.10,30,000/-  He did not take the valuation report of his house, which he had proposed to mortgage with the Bank because it was never asked for by the Bank.  It was also stated by him that at present, he does not want to avail the loan because he has been harassed by the Bank.  He has also placed reliance upon Loan Agreement (Exhibit C-1).

4.      On the other hand, Bank has examined Ms. Megha Ahluwalia, Area Operations Head, AXIS Bank Limited as OPW-1, who tendered her affidavit Exhibit OPW1/A alongwith documents viz. Asset Power Sanction Exhibit OP-1, Report of Credit Information Bureau India Limited Exhibit OP-2 and Valuation Report Exhibit OP-3.

5.      From the pleadings and the evidence on record, it is not in dispute that complainant had applied for loan of Rs.26,50,000/- to the Bank in the month of October, 2014 and the loan was sanctioned vide Asset Power Sanction Letter (Exhibit OP-1).  In the sanction letter, it was stated that sanction of the loan would be subject to :

          “1.     Terms and conditions overleaf.

          2.      Subject to technical & legal clearances alongwith other process checks.

          3.      Closure proof of loan of Rs.6 lacs & Rs.10.30 lacs as reflecting in CIBIL required prior disbursement.

          4.      Departmental loans with EMI of Rs.5000/- & 9100/- to be closed by client prior disbursement.”

          5.      Disbursement to be restricted to 65% of MV of the property.

          6.      Education Loan of Rs.7 lacs & AL from SBOP of Rs.3.95 lacs to be closed from disbursal proceeds.

          7.      Proof from employer stating his retirement age at 60 required prior disbursement.” 

6.      The complainant could not place on record any evidence to prove that at any point of time, he had placed any document to prove that loans obtained by him as reflected in the CIBIL were cleared by him.  In his statement, he has even denied that he had taken loan of Rs.10,30,000/- whereas in the CBIL report (Exhibit OP-2), it has been clearly stated that he had obtained the loan on November 18^th, 2010 and the current balance, that is, amount due on October 07^th, 2014 was Rs.8,10,625/-.  It is not expected from the complainant denying the fact of taking loan of Rs.10,00,000/- particularly when he retired as XEN.  As per the Asset Power Sanction Letter (Exhibit OP-1), it was obvious for the complainant to place on record No Due Certificates from the banks/financial institutions with regard to the loan taken by him, which he did not.  it was specifically stated in the sanction letter that the sanction was subject to the conditions mentioned hereinabove, which the complainant did not comply with. 

7.      In this view of the matter, this Commission is of the opinion that there was no fault or deficiency in service on the part of Bank and as such, the complaint is hereby dismissed.

 

 

 

Announced 02.06.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL/UK