West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/145/2015

Sree Malay Ranjan Paul - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager, State Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

18 Mar 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Member

and

 Kapot Chattopadhyay, Member.

   

Complaint Case No. 145/2015

                                                        

                                                                Sri Malay Ranjan Paul…………..….……Complainant.

Versus

                       Branch Manager, State Bank of India......…..Opp. Party.

 

              For the Complainant: Self.

              For the O.P.               : Mr. Badal Kumar Raj, Advocate.

 

Decided on: -18/03/2016

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President – Facts of the case, in brief, is that the land in plot no.423, as described in schedule of the petition of complaint, was acquired by the complainant by virtue of the deed of gift, executed by his mother and with a view to construct a residential house on that plot of land, the complainant obtained a personal loan on 26/11/2011 from the opposite party-Bank and started works of construction on the said land.  Being advised by the opposite party for getting house building loan, the complainant submitted all necessary papers before the opposite party-Bank and he also paid up the entire personal loan amount.  At the instance of the opposite party, the complainant thereafter submitted all necessary papers before the paneled lawyer of the opposite party and he also paid necessary fees for report of the valuer.  Opposite party assured for sanction Rs.6,60,000/- as house building loan. Finally on 27/10/2014, the opposite party, by sending a letter to the complainant, informed that his loan proposal has been refused

                                                                                                                                                                  Contd…………….P/2

 

 

( 2 )

by the bank.  It is stated by the complaint that for such false assurance of providing house building loan, the complaint has to incur a sum of Rs.20,000/- unnecessarily.  Had it been told by the opposite party that his proposal for loan will not be sanctioned, the complainant would not incur the said sum of Rs.20,000/-.  It is further stated that the complaint is the absolute owner of the land in question and the same is fit for equitable mortgage and there was no bar for providing loan.  Hence the complaint, praying for compensation and litigation cost.

 

                  The opposite party has contested this case by filling a written objection. Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the opposite party that the complainant applied before them for house building loan for the purpose of construction of residential house.  Opposite party verified the title deed  with their empanelled Advocate and Valuer and forwarded the same to their controlling authority but the controlling authority found that those documents did not satisfy the requirement of creation of equitable mortgage in bank’s favour and therefore the opposite party-bank returned the file to the complainant. It is further stated that the title documents, so submitted by the complainant, did not satisfy the high level authority of the bank to save and protect the interest of the bank.  Opposite party, therefore, claims dismissal of the case.

Point for decision

                      Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for ?    

                   

     Decision with reasons

     In this case, neither the complainant nor the opposite party adduced any evidence but they have relied upon some documents, so filed by them.

    Admittedly, the complainant applied before the Opposite party-Bank for a house building loan of Rs.6,60,000/-.  Admittedly, the opposite party-bank finally informed the complainant by sending a letter dated 27/10/2014 that the loan proposal has been refused.  Now the question arises for consideration is that whether such refusal of granting loan to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service or not.  We find form the written objection of the opposite party as well as their letter dated 20/10/2014 addressed to the complainant vide no.BM/04/052 dated 27/10/2014 that their law department has not given clearance on gift deed which is required for processing of loan and as the mortgage of the property offered for security will not satisfy the requirement of creation of equitable mortgage in bank’s favour.  Therefore by that letter dated 20/10/2014, the opposite party-Bank informed the complaint

                                                                                                                                                               Contd…………….P/3

 

( 3 )

that his proposal for loan has been rejected.  Granting of  loan from a bank is not a right but it is the discretion of the bank to grant such loan if all requirements for granting loan is fulfilled.  From the said letter dated 20/10/2014, we find that the law department of the bank did not give clearance on the gift deed of the complainant which was required for processing of loan and the mortgage of the property offered for security will not satisfy the requirement for creation of equitable mortgage in bank’s favour.  If the law department is not satisfied with the documents, so submitted by the complainant and does not give clearance, then the opposite party-bank had nothing to do than to reject the prayer for loan.  In that view of the matter, it cannot be held that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in refusing such loan proposal of the compliant.  About the case of the complainant that on the assurance of the opposite party, he incur Rs.20,000/- for preparation of documents etc. We find that there is no iota of evidence that the opposite party assured the complaint for providing such loan.  There are some process and formalities in granting any loan by a bank and if the law department of bank does not give clearance then the opposite party had nothing to do than to refuse the proposal for loan.

  It is, therefore, held that the opposite party cannot be said to have committed any deficiency in service and the petition of complaint is therefore liable to be rejected.

 

                                                 Hence, it is,

                                                        Ordered,

                                                           that the complaint case no.145/2015  is hereby dismissed on contest but in the circumstances without cost.

                               Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

 

                Dictated & Corrected by me

                               Sd/-                               Sd/-                        Sd/-                           Sd/-

                           President                       Member                 Member                    President

                                                                                                                             District Forum

                                                                                                                           Paschim Medinipur