Date of Filing : 14.03.2019
Date of Disposal : 30.08.2019
: JUDGMENT & ORDER dtd. 30.08.2019 :
That the complainant Buddhadev Malakar applied for a loan with the OP No. 1 UBI for purchasing a dwelling house. Thereafter, the OP No.1 requested the complainant to submit all the relevant documents regarding purchase of the said dwelling house. Furthermore, the OP No.1 demanded Rs.8,000/- as searching fees and Rs.4,200/- for estimating valuation fees by the authorized person of the Bank. Accordingly, the complainant paid all the requisite fees as demanded by the OP No. 1. On receiving the requisite fees and the relevant papers the OP bank duly issued a sanction letter dtd. 12.10.2018 informing the complainant that a term loan of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lacs) only is sanctioned in his favour. The OP No. 1 also requested the complainant to pay Rs. 26,105/- which has been duly paid by the complainant to the OP No.1, as insurance premium of the said loan for issuing insurance policy. The OP No. 1 also gave a list of the EMIs and xerox copy of the Banker’s cheque to be delivered to the Pro-OP No. 1 through Banker’s cheque vide No. 995213 after completion of the registration process.
That on 12.10.2018, after receiving the sanction letter and on being satisfied of the documents issued by the bank, the Pro-OP, Satiprasad Dutta duly registered the said dwelling house in favour of the present complainant Buddhadeb Malakar vide Book No. 1, Volume No. 1302-2018, Page from 156945 to 156966 being No. 130208863 for the year 2018 with the A.D.S.R., Krishnagar. Thereafter, as per verbal assurance of the bank the Pro-OP No. 1 went to the bank showed the registered document to the OP No. 1 and demanded the said Banker’s cheque vide No. 995213 of Rs. 15,00,000/-, but the Manager of the said bank informed the Pro-OP to come some other day as the bank is busy with official matters. Thereafter, the Pro-OP No.1 went to the bank several times for receiving the banker’s cheque of Rs. 15,00,000/- but the bank did not give the said Banker’s cheque to the Pro-OP No. 1. Thereafter, the Pro-OP No. 1 informed the said matter to the complainant. Thereafter, finding no other way the complainant informed the said incident to the Regional Office of the OP No. 1 wherein he was assured that the matter shall be solved within two days but the matter was not solved. Thereafter, on 15.01.2019 the OP No. 1 sent a termination of sanction letter dtd. 12.10.18 to the complainant. Finding no other alternative, the complainant filed the instant case, praying for a sanction of loan of Rs. 15,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% from the date of sanction of the said loan i.e., 12.10.2018 over the loan amount which is Rs. 15,00,000/-, payment of Rs. 4,00,000/- by the opposite party for loss, damages and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.50,000/-.
The complainant has filed some documents in support of his case which are below:-
‘Annexure – 1’: A copy of a Letter of Sanction dtd.12.10.2018 issued by Union Bank Of India, Krishnagar Branch.
‘Annexure – 2’: A copy of a Banker’s cheque vide No. 995213.
‘Annexure – 3’: A copy of Registered Deed of Sale.
‘Annexure – 4’: A copy of a Letter regarding Termination of Sanction Advice dtd.
15.01.2019 issued by Union Bank of India, Krishnagar Branch.
‘Annexure – 5’: A copy of Insurance of SUD Life.
‘Annexure – 6: A copy of Particulars of Grievances of CAB, Nadia.
On the other hand, the OP No. 1 contested the case by filing a written version wherein he denied the entire allegations brought by the complainant.
The specific contention of the OP No.1 is that the complainant filed an application on 09.10.2018 for sanctioning a term loan of Rs. 15,00,000/- for the purpose of purchase of ready built house for personal use under Union Home Scheme and this opposite party issued the letter of sanction on 12.10.2018 with some terms and conditions thereon and also requested the complainant to convey his acceptance and in the said sanction letter it is also mentioned that the opposite party to call on the complainant any working day to enable him to disburse the loan after proper documentation. The OP No.1 further mentioned that this opposite party never issued any xerox copy of bankers cheque to the complainant and the complainant anyhow took a photocopy of a banker’s cheque from his mobile phone which was lying on the table of the bank Manager of the opposite party and this opposite party craves leave to file a criminal proceeding against the complainant for his said act of taking a snap from his mobile phone of a blank draft which was lying on the table of the Bank in order to creation of fraudulent act on the part of complaint.
The said sanction letter was issued by the opposite party on 12.10.2018 and very peculiar enough that in spite of disbursement of the said loan amount, the complainant in connivance with the Power of Attorney holder of the Vendors executed a Registered Deed of Sale on 12.10.2018 before the office of the A.D.S.R. Krishnagar and on the said Registered Deed of Sale where the executants of the said Deed of Sale acknowledged that the said executants have already received Rs. 15,00,000/- by Bankers cheque No. 995213 over the Union Bank of India.
Under the above facts and circumstances the OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint case with cost.
OP No 1 has filed some documents to defend his case which are below:-
- A Letter of Sanction dtd. 12.10.2018 in original.
- A Termination of Sanction Advice dtd. 12.01.2019 in original.
The Pro-OP No. 1 also contested the case by filing a W.V. wherein he has stated that the true fact is that OP No. 1 on 12.10.2018 sanctioned loan of Rs. 15,00,000/- and gave a list of EMI and xerox copy of banker’s cheque to the complainant, and also informed the complainant that the said amount of Rs.15,00,000/- shall be handed over to the Pro-OP No. 1 through banker’s cheque vide No. 995213, after completion of the registration procedure. Accordingly, the Pro-OP No. 1 went to the bank i.e., OP No. 1 and demanded the said banker’s cheque but the Manager informed that they are very busy. Thereafter, the Pro-OP 1 went to the bank several times for getting the banker’s cheque but the said bank did not give him the said banker’s cheque of Rs. 15,00,000/- and also informed the matter to the complainant.
Under the above facts and circumstances the Pro-OP No. 1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint case with cost.
Points for discussion
- Whether the complainant is a consumer under the purview of CP Act, 1986?
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the OP Bank?
- Is the complainant entitled to get any relief /reliefs as prayed for?
Decision with reasons
Point No. 1:
With regard to point No. 1 both sides did not ventilate this point at the time of argument. Admittedly, the relationship of consumer and service provider is not denied between the complainant and the OPs. So, the complainant is a consumer within the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
This point goes in favour of the complainant.
Point No. 2:
The main point of determination in this case is whether the sanction letter dtd. 12.10.2018 revealed as “Annexure – 1” issued by the Bank to the applicant/Loanee is in true sense a sanction letter or a proposal of sanction letter. Generally a sanction letter is an intimation from the lending institution stating the loanee that he is eligible to get a home loan from the bank to a certain loan.
Before issuing a sanction letter the applicant has to come across with certain steps. The first step is he has to apply for loan with the Bank.
The 2nd step is to submit certain documents as required by Bank such as property details, chain deeds, mutation papers, tax papers etc.
The third step involves searching in the concerned registration office, estimating valuation by the concerned Bank for which the loanee has to bear the requisite fees. After fulfilling all the above aspects a sanction letter is issued by the bank.
From the case record, it appears that the complainant/loanee duly applied for loan and submitted the documents relating to the property and also deposited the requisite fees with the Bank required for causing searching and valuation . Upon receiving the aforesaid documents the Bank was convinced with the credentials of the applicant/complainant and thus, the Bank proceeded further with the sanction process and hence issued sanction letter otherwise the application would have been rejected.
The very sanction letter dtd. 12.10.2018 Which has been issued by the Bank intimating that to the tune of Rs.15,0000/- has been issued in favour of the loanee, which by any stretch of imagination cannot be ignored. On being satisfied of the contents of the sanction letter and the xerox copy of banker’s cheque the Pro-OP No.1 duly registered the property in favour of the complainant on 12.10.2018 itself with the A.D.S.R Krishnagar and as per verbal assurance made by the Bank for delivering the original banker’s cheque to the Pro-OP No.1. After the completion of the registration process the Pro-OP No.1 went to the Bank and demanded the said original Banker’s cheque vide ‘Annexure – 2’ but the Bank Manager told him since the Bank was busy on that date, hence the cheque could not be delivered and asked him to come some other day. It is the general practice of the Bank a Xerox copy of banker’s cheque is delivered first and after completion of the registration process banker’s cheque is delivered to the owner of the property.
After hearing the submission of the Ld. Advocates appearing for the respective parties and on perusal of the relevant documents we have come to conclusion that there has been gross negligence as well as deficiency in service on the part of the Banking Authority towards the complainant by not delivering the banker’s cheque and not performing their obligation on their part.
Therefore, it is very much clear that the entire activities of the OP Bank is willful inaction and latches on their part and the Baking Authority is solely responsible for unnecessary suffering and harassment of the complainant. Thus, it is clear case of deficiency in service by the Bank.
Point No. 3.
On the basis of discussion as a whole, we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to get reliefs as prayed for.
In the net result, the case succeeds.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D,
That the case be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP No.1.
The OP No. 1 is hereby directed to sanction the loan of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Fifteen lakh) Only and hand over the said loan amount through banker’s cheque to the pro forma OP No. 1 within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which an interest @ 10% p.a. shall be imposed on the loan amount of Rs.15,00,000/- till full realization.
The OP No. 1 is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment and mental agony of the complainant and also litigation cost of Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.
Let a plain copy of this judgment/order be supplied to the parties forthwith free of cost.
