Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/17/1290

VIJAY SINGH GURJAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

BR.MANAGER, ALLAHABAD BANK - Opp.Party(s)

SH.AVINASH SAXENA

11 Nov 2022

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 1290 OF 2017

(Arising out of order dated 19.06.2017 passed in C. C. No.375/2016 by District Commission, Sagar)

 

VIJAY SINGH GURJAR,

S/O SHRI JAGATSINGH GURJAR,

R/O VILLAGE-KHERA SALAIYA,

POST-KANERA NEEKHAR,

POLICE STATION-NARYAWALI,

DISTRICT-SAGAR (M.P.)                                                                                       ….       APPELLANT.

 

Versus

 

BRANCH MANAGER,

ALLAHABAD BANK, BRANCH-JARUAKHEDA,

TEHSIL & DISTRICT-SAGAR (M.P.)                                                                        ….    RESPONDENT.    

                     

BEFORE :

           HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR   :    PRESIDENT

            HON’BLE SHRI S. S. BANSAL                                     :    MEMBER

            HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK                         :    MEMBER

                  

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

Shri Avnish Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Manoj Shahi, learned counsel for the respondent.

 

                                                     O R D E R

                                       (Passed On 11.11.2022)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr. (Mrs) Monika Malik, Member:

 

                  This appeal by the complainant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘appellant’) is directed against the order dated 19.06.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sagar (for short the ‘District Commission’) in C. C. No. 275/2016 whereby the complaint filed by him has been dismissed.

2.                Briefly put, case of the appellant is such that the appellant is owner of 30x30=900 sq.ft ancestral property, situated in patwari halka no.8

-2-

of District-Sagar and the same is in dilapidated condition.  The appellant had applied to the opposite party/respondent-bank (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondent’) for sanction of loan of Rs.1,00,000/- under ‘Chief Minister Housing Scheme’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘scheme’) on 01.07.2016 regarding construction of cottage on the said premises. The appellant had completed all the formalities and had supplied all relevant documents to the respondent. The appellant even constructed 6 feet boundary wall on the said premises, after receiving loan sanction assurance from the respondent but the respondent did not give the loan amount to him.  The appellant therefore approached the District Commission alleging deficiency in service on part of the respondent, seeking directions regarding sanction of loan amount along with compensation and costs.

3.                The respondent resisted the complaint stating that the appellant intended to seek loan regarding reconstruction on his ancestral property.  He is thus not entitled to get loan under the aforesaid scheme.  It is therefore submitted that the respondent has not been deficient in service in the instant matter.

4.                Heard. Perused the record.

5.                Learned counsel for the appellant argued that after receiving instructions from the respondent, the appellant had started construction in

 

-3-

the said premises. He even borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- to carry out aforesaid construction.  The conduct of the respondent has been highly unfair since the respondent had given false assurances regarding sanction of the loan but later no loan amount was sanctioned to him.  He argued that the impugned order deserves to be set-aside.

6.                Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that discretion of loan sanction rests with the bank.  He argued that appellant himself is responsible when he carried out the alleged construction, which was as per his own wish. No such assurance was given by the respondent bank ever. After investigation when it was found out that the appellant intended to demolish his ancestral property in order to construct new house, sanction of loan was denied to him since the same does not fall in the scope of the scheme.  Therefore this appeal deserves to be dismissed.

7.                We find that Exhibit D-1 in the record of the District Commission is the pre-sanction visit report of the premises of the appellant dated 22.08.2016.  The visiting officer in the said report has pointed out that the borrower already has his own house, in which construction work is in progress and the boundaries of the construction part in already existing house did not match with the patta.  On this basis, sanction of loan was denied by the respondent bank.

 

-4-

8.                The District Commission has thus rightly held that the appellant has not been able to adduce evidence which could suggest that earlier the respondent had agreed to sanction the loan but denied it later or to the effect that he was asked by the respondent to carry out construction work in the said premises. On the other hand, the respondent bank has put forward pre-sanction visit report dated 22.08.2016 and loan rejection letter dated 26.09.2016 (Exhibit D-2) which shows that appellant was not found entitled for getting loan and therefore the same was denied to him. Holding that applying for loan and sanction of the same are two different things, the District Commission has rightly observed that discretion regarding loan sanction lies with the bank. The District Commission has further rightly observed that there is no rebuttal by the appellant to the documents put forward by the respondent.

9.                Therefore, on the above basis, we reach a conclusion that the District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant.  The impugned order is hereby upheld.

10.              This appeal, which is devoid of any merit is also dismissed with no order as to costs.

 

(JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR)       (S.S.BANSAL)        (DR. MONIKA MALIK)         

                  PRESIDENT                               MEMBER                      MEMBER