COMPLAINT FILED:29.04.2009 <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 22nd AUGUST 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.973/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT S.R.Manjunatha,<br /> No.2/1, Shivappa Building,<br /> Near Ayappa Temple,<br /> S.M.Road, Jalahalli West,<br /> Bangalore – 560 091.<br /> <br /> Advocate Sri Sreedhar. R.<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY The Manager,<br /> State Bank of Mysore,<br /> Vidyaranyapura Branch,<br /> Vidyaranyapura,<br /> Bangalore – 560 097.<br /> <br /> Advocate <br /> Sri Varadaraj R.Havaldar<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay Rs.60,000/- as compensation and refund of Rs.93,323/- with regard to the loan and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 2. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> 3. Complainant intended to purchase a site at Kengeri Satellite Town at the cost of Rs.8,50,000/- in that regard he sought for the loan from the OP. OP agreed to sanction the said loan. Complainant was expected to pay Rs.2,00,627/- as first installment. He made payment of the first installment. With all that the said housing board did not allot and register a site in favour, for more than 12 months. OP without releasing the sanctioned loan went on charging the interest. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant not to charge such interest went in futile. OP released the subsequent installments. But there after without the consent of the complainant, they adjusted Rs.80,000/- from his SB account towards the loan account. Which is unjust and improper. OP promised him that the said loan will not carry interest for the first 18 months, but it did not keep up its promise. On the other hand arbitrarily charged the interest. OP has to pay him Rs.93,323/- out of the loan sanctioned and Rs.80,000/- drawn from his SB account. His repeated requests and demands made to OP to settled the dispute went in vain. Hence he felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under such circumstances he is advised to file this complaint. <br /> <br /> 4. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the loan sanctioned to him. The disbursement of the said loan is at the absolute discretion of the OP depending on facts and circumstances. As per the request of the complainant, OP disbursed the first installment of Rs.2,00,627/- to KHB. But thereafter some how complainant failed to pay the interest on the sanctioned loan that too for more than 12 months. Nor he got registered the site in his favour. Of course the complainant himself has made payment of certain amount towards the loan and towards interest. The other allegations are false and baseless. OP is not liable to pay the balance of amount. Whatever the loan that is availed and required by the complainant was disbursed. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> 5. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 6. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No.1 :- Whether the complainant has proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No.2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the reliefs now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No.3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> 7. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- Negative.<br /> <br /> Point No.2:- Negative.<br /> <br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 8. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant applied for a loan of Rs.8,50,000/- from OP for the purpose of purchase for a site at Kengeri Satellite town to be allotted by KHB. It is also not at dispute that OP has released the first installment of Rs.2,00,627/- as per the request of the complainant. OP promised to release the remaining amount at the time of registration of the site as last installments. As admitted by complainant himself though he paid the first installment for 12 months. KHB has not executed the sale deed in his favour with respect to a site allotted. As per the banking norms. OP has got a right to charge interest on the loan availed, that act of the OP cannot be termed as deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> 9. When complainant become defaulter and failed to pay interest. Naturally OP demanded the complainant to pay the same. Complainant made part payment on various dates. With all that complainant come up with the allegations that without his consent. OP has withdrawn Rs.80,000/- from his SB account. On the other hand the documents produced by the OP goes to show that complainant made payment part by part that is Rs.22,500/-, Rs.7,500/- and Rs.30,000/- towards the amount in due to the OP. When that is so the other allegations of the complainant appears to be baseless. The contention of the complainant that he is entitled for Rs.93,323/- being the balance amount out of the total loan sanctioned of Rs.3,75,000/- has no merit and substance. The release and disbursement of the loan is at the sole discretion of the OP. OP after following the facts and circumstances of the case as well as terms and conditions of the loan releases the required amount. If the complainant is not deligent in getting the said site allotted well within reasonable time, he cannot blame the OP in regard. Having thoroughly scrutinized both oral and documentary evidence we are aware of the view that the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. <br /> <br /> 10. We have gone through the decisions relied upon by the complaint, the facts on our hand differs from the facts enunciated by their Lord ship’s in the said ruling reported in 2008 CPJ 462 and 2008 CPJ page 31. We have followed the basic principles and guidelines enunciated by their Lord ship’s in the above said ruling while coming to the just conclusion if this case. On the plain reading of the complainant allegations it did not spell out a case of hiring of service and suffering from deficiency rather it discloses the case relating to the settlement of accounts and for the balance in due on the basis of accounts. Under such circumstances the complainant did not fall within the ambit of Section 2(1)(c)(e) of the C.P. Act. If the complainant is so advised he can file a civil suit to redress his grievance if any. For these reasons we answer point Nos. 1 and 2 accordingly we proceed to pass the following: <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 22nd day of August 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> s.n.m. <br />