In the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Murshidabad
Berhampore, Murshidabad.
Case No. C.C/23 /2015
Date of filing: 17/02/2015 Date of Final Order: 26/07/2016
Abul Kalam@ Md. Abul Kalam .
S/O- Jarapat Sekh., Of Vill.- Bablabona. P.O.-K.M.Para.
P.S.- Raninagar. Dist- Murshidabad, (W.B.) ……………………………... Complainant
- Vs-
State Bank Of India Sekhpara Branch.
Vill.& P.O.-Sekhpara.
Dist.- Murshidabad. ………….….………… Opposite Party
Mr. Firdaus Wahid Siddique. Ld. Adv..……………………………. for the complainant
Mr.Satinath Chandra. Ld. Advocate…………………………………….for the Opposite Party.
Before: Hon’ble President, Anupam Bhattacharyya.
Hon’ble Member, Samaresh Kumar Mitra.
FINAL ORDER
Samaresh Kumar Mitra, Member.
Brief facts of the case is that complainant being a business man decided to install wheat, paddy and spice grinding machine for business purpose and prayed for cash loan amounting to Rs. 6,00,000.00 before the OP Bank and submitted relevant papers including application form and no objection certificate as a proof of his competency to pay up the loan. Necessary scrutiny made and detected that the complainant has fulfilled criteria of obtaining loan from OP. Thereafter, he visited the OP bank so that his loan may be sanctioned at an earliest date and the OP assured that the loan will be sanctioned very soon. Then the complainant requested the OP to disburse the loan amount but the OP did not sanction the loan after lapse of long time so the complainant suffered from endless mental pain and agony due to deficiency of service of this OP. getting no other alternative the complainant filed the instant complaint for redressal as prayed for in the prayer portion of the complaint.
OP appeared by its agent and filed written version denying the allegations as leveled against him and averred that the complainant was not a consumer within the purview of C.P. Act, 1986. So the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. The complainant approached before the OP bank for commercial loan and submitted some documents in support of his status of business. After scrutinizing those documents the Bank officials made inspection and filed enquiry as per banking norms and found that there is no viability by which loan could be granted. So the OP Bank did not sanction the proposed loan of the complainant, so there is no question of disbursement of fund. As such the complaint is liable to be rejected with cost.
The complainant did not file any evidence- on- affidavit.
The OP filed evidence on affidavit in which he assailed that the proposal of the complainant has not been sanctioned and bank never been decided that the complainant fulfilled necessary criteria for obtaining loan. He further averred that after scrutinizing the documents the Bank could not sanction the loan so there is no question of disbursement of funds. It is the discretion of the banking authority to accept or reject any loan proposal and complainant has no right to claim disbursement of fund on the basis of his mere application which has not been sanctioned.
None argued on behalf of the complainant and OP advanced argument by its agent it is heard in full.
From the discussion herein above, we find the following Issues/Points for consideration.
ISSUES/POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Whether the Complainant ‘Abul Kalam@ Md. Abul Kalam’ is a ‘Consumer’ of the Opposite Party?
- Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
- Whether the O.Ps carried on unfair trade practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?
- Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?
DECISION WITH REASONS
In the light of discussions here in above we find that the issues/points should be decided based on the above perspectives.
(1).Whether the Complainant Abul Kalam@ Md. Abul Kalam is a ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?
From the materials on record it is transparent that the Complainant applied for loan before the OP but he is not a consumer of the OP as provided by the spirit of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
(2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
Both the complainant and opposite party are residents/carrying on business within the district of Murshidabad. The complaint valued within Rs.20,00,000/- limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.
(3).Whether the opposite party carried on Unfair Trade Practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?
The case of the complainant is that he applied for loan amounting to Rs.6,00,000.00 before the OP bank and submitted a few documents in relation to his business credentials and financial capacity and knocked before the OP for disbursement of loan and after a prolonged period he came to know that his loan has not been sanctioned so no fund has been disbursed as such he felt mental pain & agony for which he preferred the redressal of this Form.
The case of the OP bank is that the complainant is not a consumer of OP bank but he applied for loan for business purpose and submitted a few documents in support of his claim as well as relevant for granting loan. The OP bank officials on scrutinizing the documents made inspection and field enquiry as per banking norms and found that there is no viability on such business by which loan could be granted, so they did not sanction the loan as such there is no question of disbursement of fund.
The agent on behalf of the OP bank in his argument assailed that the complainant is not a consumer of the bank for which the complaint petition is liable to be rejected. The loan as prayed by the complainant is for commercial purpose which is not maintainable before this Forum. He referred a decision of Hon’ble State Commission of Maharastra vide F.A. No.-565/2001 in which it is stated that ‘Bank has discretion to decide whether to sanction loan and whether having sanctioned the loan, same is to be disbursed or not’.
It is the well settled principle of law that loan is not a matter of right but a favour, bank has discretionary power to grant or reject loan and it is affirmed in different cases of National Commission.
We are in the view that by no means imply that the OP bank is required to release the loan without completing the formalities/paper work and without settling the terms and conditions for repayment of loan as also without ensuring to secure the repayment of loan by asking for sum security in the form of guarantee or hypothecation of the property. The OP is a public sector bank dealing with public money and it is not expected to release the loan in favour of the parties without completing the formalities for ensuring the repayment of loan.
4). Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?
The discussion made herein before, we have no hesitation to come in a conclusion that the Complainant could not able to prove his case and the Opposite Party is not liable to pay any compensation for deficiency of service.
ORDER
Hence it is ordered that the complaint be and the same is dismissed on merit with no order as to cost against the Opposite party.
No other reliefs are awarded to the complainant.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/sent by ordinary post forthwith, for information & necessary action.
Dictated and corrected by me.
Member, President,
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Murshidabad. Redressal Forum, Murshidabad.
