In The District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Banka
Complaint Case No. 21 of 2016.
Krishna Kumar Ratan: …………………………………………………………….. Complainant.
V/S
Ashok Kumar Tirky
Manager SBI Banka: …………………………………………………………… Opposite Party.
Order
27.11.2018 :- This order is based on the petition of OP State Bank of India, Banka Branch dated 09.05.2018 praying therein to dismiss the case as not maintainable.
The fact arising out to the petition is that the instant case is not maintainable in the eye of law on the given facts & circumstances of the case as it is clear that the complainant applied for loan in SBI Banka for purchase of old building which was not acceptable in the Bank norms. it is further submitted that the complainant always change his view for taking loan from the bank for investment for purchase of old building which created doubt in his integrity. The complainant is only an applicant for loan, not the consumer of the bank with the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act hence not triable by this court. The documents filed by complainant does not bound down the OP to sanction loan.
It is further stated that it is legally open to the banking company concerned to take a decision on good faith in exercise of its bonafid discretion as to whether it is safe to make advance of public fund to Particular Party and arrive at a decision after examining relevant facts & circumstances.
On the basis of aforesaid facts it is prayed to dismiss the complainant as not maintainable.
This petition is opposed by complainant through his rejoinder dated 06.06.2018 praying therein to dismiss the petition of OP and pass an order that the complainant is maintainable one.
The facts stated in the rejoinder are that the complainant has applied for a housing loan to the OP bank. The complainant is a Government Employee posted in Central Security Force. It is also alleged that on demand of OP the complainant furnished salary slip to the bank. After due verification of land the OP became ready to sanction loan and promised to pay a loan of a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/-. The branch manager asked valuer M.C. Jha through a letter to submit valuation report of the property to be given in security as well as asked from Registrar, Registry Office Banka to submit non encumbrance report. The bank manager Ashok Kumar Tirky wrote a letter to Govt. Pleader asking his opinion to sanction loan. The said branch manager also asked to complainant to pay house tax to the house to be kept in security and demanded up to date rent receipt of the land given in security. It is further submitted that in dealing all these formalities the complainant has to incurr 30 – 35 thousand Rupees subsequently the branch manager told to the complainant that as per new circular no loan is to be sanctioned on old house as therein is possibility of damage to the house due to earthquake. therefore, the complainant asked the OP to sanction the loan as per the valuation of the land which was valued to the tune of Rs. 15 lakhs but the OP did not agree subsequently the complainant requested OP to sanction the personal loan.
It is further submitted that IDBI Bank Banka has sanctioned Rs. Fourteen lakh loan to the complainant on the said old house. It is submitted that the act of negligence of OP caused the complainant damage of Rs. One lakh hence it is submitted that the complainant is maintainable in the Forum.
We have heard learned counsel of both sides and perused the record.
This complaint is filed on 03.05.2016 against OP Ashok Kumar Tirky and others for a compensation Rs. 1,00,000/- as damages suffered to him by the deficiency of service on the part of Op a service provider learned counsel of complainant Shri Liladhar lal advocate relying upon the judgment passed by Andhra Pradesh , State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) Hyderabad dated 01.03.1995 passed in M. Manikyaamba and another’s V/s Dr. R. Satyanarayan 1996 (1) CPR 133 ( A.P) and order dated 13th day of June 2017 in the case of Bluemax Impex India Pvt. Ltd. V/s ICICI Bank ltd. by the Manage, has submitted that the complainant is maintainable and the application of OP is fit to be rejected.
The admitted fact in this case is that the complainant has applied for housing loan from OP Ashok Tirky who was posted s manager in state bank of India Banka. It is also admitted that the loan was not sanctioned by the OP. it is also admitted fact that no processing fee was charged by OP from the complainant.
Now question arises as to whether the complainant has become consumer and OP is service provider in this fact & circumstances of this case?
In the matter of M Manikyaamba & anothers V/s Dr. R. Satyanarayan . These facts of this case are totally different with the fact of this case. In the case of M. Manikyaamba Supra the complainant was filed to direct restoration of outer wall to “9” thickness carpet area 830 Sq. fit and to handover possession of the flat. While the fact of this case is for non sanction of loan by the OP hence this ruling does not apply in this case.
Likewise the fact of the case in Bluemax Impex India Pvt. Ltd. the admitted position was that the complainant was engaged in business of distribution of electronics Goods and mobile. He had availed loan from Canera Bank for Rs. 6 crore which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 9 crores. For sanction of loan processing Fee was paid by complainant but the bank did not sanction enhanced loan of Rs. 11 crores. The processing fee was admittedly paid by the complainant in such circumstances it was held that these were deficiency of service by the bank.
While the instant case no any processing fee either demanded or paid by the complainant. Thus this law is also a not applicable to this case.
Learned counsel of OP Sri K.B. Dubay Advocate submitted that since bank has neither charged nor collected processing fee hence there does not exist relation between complainant & OP as consumer& service provider hence this complainant case is not maintainable as the complainant is not consumer of OP.
Applying Principle of Section 2(I) (g) of consumer protection Act it is derived that the sanctioning of loan is discretion of bank and non sanctioning of loan is not a deficiency of service. It is legally open to the banking company concerned to taka a decision in good faith in the exercise of its bonafid discretion as to whether it is safe to make advance of Public Fund to any Particular party? and to arrive at a conclusion after studying relevant facts and circumstances, it can not be said that when after consideration of relevant factors the bank in its discretion decides not to grant loan there has been deficiency of service on their part. Relying upon the principle laid down In the matter of C. Gengari V/s Canera Bank, 1(2001) CPJ 88 (Supra) it was held that, in view of the matter, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
In the instant case the OP did not sanction the loan on the ground that the property was an old house was not sufficient as security to sanction the loan and it was the discretion of the bank to Protect the Public Fund to be given to the complainant. Thus applying the principle laid down in aforesaid matter of C. Gengari V/s Canera Bank 1(2001) CPJ, I found that the OP has exercised the discretion in favour of the bank and did not found viable to sanction loan. Thus the complainant of this case is not consumer in the eye of law and as such there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP.
On the basis of aforesaid discussion we came to the conclusion that there does not exist, between complainant and OP, the relations of consumer and service provider. The complainant being no consumer for the purpose of this case hence the complaint is not maintainable in the eye of law. In the result this complaint is dismissed as not maintainable. Let it be consigned to Record Room.
Member Member President
Dr. Binay Kumar Singh Dr. Neelam Kumari Neelu Md. Naimullah
