IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

CASE No.CC/24/2015

 Date of Filing: 17.02.2015.                                                                                  Date of Final Order: 24.08.2016.

Complainant :  Jahiruddin, S/O Mahiruddin, Vill. Bablabona, P.O. K.M.Para, P.S. Raninagar,

                        Dist. Murshidabad.

-Vs-

Opposite Party: State Bank of India, Sekhpara Branch, Vill.& P.O. Sekhpara, Dist. Murshidabad.

                       Present:    Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya ….................... President.                              

                                         Sri Samaresh Kumar Mitra ……………………..Member.           

                                                Smt. Pranati Ali ……….………….……………. Member

FINAL ORDER

Smt. Pranati Ali, Presiding Member.

Instant complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 for an order to the OP to disburse amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as cash credit loan along with Rs.15,000/- as compensation to the complainant.

            The complainant’s case, is that the complainant /Jahiruddin applied for loan to the OP/State Bank of India, Sekhpara Branch to extend his grocery and stationery shop . The complainant submitted all the required documents to the OP as well as visited several times to pursue the matter and the OP gave assurance to look after the matter, but the loan has not yet been disbursed. After long waiting the complainant mentally suffered a lot and was bound to file this case in the Forum for proper redress.

            On the other hand, the OP appeared in this case by filing written version, where he denied the allegations of assurance of loan sanction and non- disbursement of loan to the complainant. The OP stated that the complainant applied for loan and submitted some documents in support of his status of business , but after perusal of the documents and inspected the field, the OP personnel did not sanction the loan. The OP also stated that Bank never sanctioned thesaid loan. So, there is no question of disbursement. Besides this, the Bank has discretionary power to accept /sanction and/or reject the loan application. So, there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the OP/Bank, for that the complaint is liable to be rejected.

            The only point for consideration is that whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP or not and or whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief or not.

                                                                        Decision with Reasons.

            It is pertinent to mention that the complainant has submitted some documents in support of his case.

            Perused all the documents on the record, we observed that the complainant applied for loan with some supportive documents is admitted  fact , but after inspection the OP did not find any viability to sanction the loan. So, the OP did not sanction the loan, which was evident in the written version submitted by the OP. The OP/Bank also stated that he has a discretion to accept or reject the loan application, which we found as evidence in a circular distributed by the by the Reserve Bank of India.

            The Circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India is as under:

            “Matters concerning the eligibility of parties to any credit assistance, viability of the project and continuation of the credit facilities or the operation of the account by any party, are within the discretion of the financial institution/bank depending upon various factors like financial discipline and past history of borrower and his ability to pay the loan, if such discretion is exercised bonafide. Even though the bank has the right to refuse or grant loan, causing undue delay in releasing the installments of the sanctioned loan might be held to amount to deficiency in service”.

So, the OP has no deficiency in service by rejecting the loan application of the complainant.

            Regarding the loan disbursement as prayed by the complainant, it is clear that when the said loan is not approved, obviously the question of disbursement will not arise.

            So, in this regard our view is that the complainant is not entitled to get relief as he prayed for.

            On the basis of above discussions and also consideration the documentary evidence as to refusal or grant the loan by the OP/Bank we have no other alternative but conclude that the complainant is not entitled to get relief as he prayed for.

            Hence,

                                                               Ordered

that the Consumer Complaint No. 24/2015 be and the same is hereby dismissed on merit without any order as to cost.

Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgment / be sent forthwith under ordinary post  to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.

        Member                                           Member                                                             President