Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/46

M.D.Mumtaz Alam - Complainant(s)

Versus

Axis Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Mukhtiar Singh

26 Jul 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 46 dated 21.01.2019                                                Date of decision: 26.07.2022

 

M.D.Mumtaz Alam s/o Sh.M.D.Ishaque r/o Vardhman Nagar, Rahon Road, Tehsil and District Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                                    ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1.Axis Bank (Securities), Branch The Mall, 2^nd Floor Surya Towers, Civil Lines, Ludhiana through its authorized officer/s.

2.Mr.Anil Dutt, ASM, Axis Bank (Securities), Branch The Mall, 2^nd Floor Surya Towers, Civil Lines, Ludhiana.

3.Mr.Gurpeet Singh, Assistant, Axis Bank (Securities), Branch The Mall, 2^nd Floor Surya Towers, Civil Lines, Ludhiana                                                                                                                                                …..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH.JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh.Mukhtiar Singh, Advocate

For OPs                         :         None for the OPs

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                           Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that on 18.05.2018, he applied for a home loan from the OP1 who represented by the OP2 and OP3. OPs inspected the application of the complainant and other necessary documents submitted by him and assured him that the loan will surely be sanctioned but the complainant would have to fulfil the certain formalities and legal opinion from the Advocate of the bank was also required to be taken. The complainant intended to avail a home loan of Rs.15 lacs against his property measuring 90 square yards situated at village Gahlewal, Tehsil and District Ludhiana bearing property M.C.Part of property No.B-32-1370/15. The complainant was owner of the said property vide Vasika No.15335 dated 02.12.2018 duly registered with Sub-Registrar, Ludhiana. The mutation No.21478 had already been sanctioned. OPs obtained the legal opinion from their own Advocate regarding the property which was to be mortgaged with the bank and there was no impediment or hindrance in mortgage of the property in favour of the OP bank. On asking of OP2 and OP3, the complainant completed all the necessary formalities and also deposited Rs.2950/- out of his saving bank account on 18.05.2018 and also paid Rs.118/- to the OPs. The complainant also issued a cheque no.146796 dated 21.08.2018 for Rs.11,800/- which was credited in the account of the OPs. The complainant completed the necessary formalities and also paid Rs.5000/- to Jai Kumar, Architect who submitted his report. The complainant further paid Rs.1500/- for obtaining the non-encumbrance certificate and jamabandies. After completing all the formalities, OP2 and OP3 informed the complainant that his loan of Rs.12,45,000/- out of Rs.15 lacs has been sanctioned. However, when the complainant visited the OP bank to avail the loan, he was informed that the loan had not been sanctioned by the bank. When the complainant asked the reason about non-sanctioning of the loan, he was told that the photographs of the plot to be mortgaged attached with the loan file were not genuine and the same were edited/tampered. When the complainant tried to clarify that it was not true, the OPs did not trust the complainant. Even when the complainant tried to clarify that the photographs were genuine but he was not heard. The OPs even refused to get the fresh photographs of the property in question and arbitrarily refused to sanction the loan. The OPs further refused to refund the amount of Rs.23,568/- paid by the complainant to the OPs with regard to sanction of the loan. This amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence the complaint whereby it has been requested that the OPs be directed to pay the amount of Rs.23,568/- spent by the complainant and be also directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.2 lacs and in addition to that the OPs be also made to pay litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/- to the complainant.

2.              The complaint has been resisted by the OPs. In the written statement filed on behalf of the OPs, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable. It has been denied if the OPs assured the complainant that the loan would surely be sanctioned. According to the OPs, the complainant submitted the requisite documents with the OPs which were sent for due verification to the fraud control unit of the bank. A query was received from the fraud control unit following which the complainant was asked to provide the photos of buyer and seller standing together outside the property in question, as in the photographs provided by the complainant, entrance gate of the property was not clearly visible. Therefore, the complainant was asked to provide the fresh photographs. When the complainant provided the photographs for the second time with entrance gate showing in the photographs, it was found that the seller was not present at the site and the photographs of the seller was pasted through photoshop usage as is clear from the attached photographs which indicated wrong intention on the part of the complainant.

3.                It has further been pleaded that the complainant was again asked to provide the fresh photographs but he did not pay any heed to the request of the officials of the OPs. As a result, the loan application form of the complainant was rejected as something wrong and suspicious was found pertaining to the title of the property which was to be mortgaged by the complainant with the OP bank. Thus, there has been no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. The rest of the averments made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

4.                In evidence, the complainant submitted his affidavit Ex.CA/1 along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C16 and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, OPs submitted affidavit along with the written statement but not tendered the detailed affidavit and documents in evidence of the OPs.

6.                In this case, none has been appearing on behalf of the OPs for quite sometime. However, we have heard the counsel for the complainant and gone through the record and proceed to decide this complaint on merits.

7.                During the course of arguments, counsel for the complainant has argued that the OPs have wrongly rejected the case of the complainant for grant of home loan on false and frivolous grounds which cannot be justified. The complainant spent a lot of money for obtaining the documents and all the requisite documents were submitted with the OP bank which were legal and valid but despite that the loan has not been sanctioned. This amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OP bank. Counsel for the complainant has further contended that the OPs be made to pay/refund the amount of Rs.23,568/- spent by the complainant in connection with availing of loan from the OPs and be also made to pay the compensation as prayed for in the complaint.

8.                We have considered the contentions raised by counsel for the complainant but found the same devoid of any force of substance. It is well settled that it is the prerogative of the bank to grant or sanction a loan or not and any banking institution cannot be compelled to grant a loan.

9.                Secondly, it has been claimed by the OPs in the written statement that when the case of the complainant was sent to fraud control unit of the bank, a query was received following which the complainant was asked to provide the photos of buyer and seller standing together outside the property which the complainant intended to mortgage in favour of the bank. However, when the complainant submitted the fresh photographs, it was found that the seller could not be seen in the photographs and the photographs were doctored as the photograph of the seller was superimposed which indicated wrong intention on the part of the complainant and due to this reason, the loan application form of the complainant was rejected. All these facts have been pleaded in the para no.5 of the written statement. The complainant has not filed any replication or rejoinder to controvert these allegations. The complainant has further not placed on record any photographs or copy thereof which might have been submitted with the OPs in respect of the property intended to be mortgaged in favour of the OPs as security for the loan. Thus, allegations made in the written statement remain uncontroverted. Even otherwise, it is settled proposition of law that no banking institution can be compelled to sanction a loan and it is prerogative of the bank to sanction or not to sanction a loan to a particular party and the bank is well within its discretion to refuse to grant a loan to the party if some suspicion arises about the authenticity of any document especially with regard to the property intended to mortgage with the bank as is the case in the present complaint. Therefore, it cannot be said to be a case of deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.

10.                        As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. However, if any fee or amount deposited by the complainant with the OP bank for grant of loan, the same shall be refunded to the complainant. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

11.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within the statutory period.

 

                     (Jaswinder Singh)                      (K.K. Kareer)                                              Member                                   President

Announced in Open Commission                                           Dated:26.07.2022                                                                                    Gurpreet Sharma.