IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
MURSHIDABAD , AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC No. 43/2015.
Date of Filing: Date of Admission : Date of Disposal:
24.03.2016 23.04.2016 10.11.2017
Rabindra Nath Das,
S/o Late Laxmi Narayan Das,
3A A.C. Road, P.O. Khagra,
Dist. Murshidabad, Pin: 742103. ………… Complainant.
-vs-
Br.Manager,
United Bank of India,
Khagra Branch, B.B. Sen Road,
P.S. Berhampore, Dist. Murshidabad. ……..... Opposite Party.
Sri Siddhartha S. Dhar, Advocate ……… for Complainant
Sri Subhash Saha, Advocate ……… for Opposite Party
Present : Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya ………… President.
Smt. Chandrima Chakraborty …. .…. Member.
Sri Manas Kumar mukherjee .…. ….. Member.
Cont. ……….…. 2
= 2 =
J U D G M E N T
Chandrima Chakraborty, Member.
The door of this Forum has been knocked by the Complainant for redressal of the consumer dispute as per the C. P. Act, 1986.
In laconic, the fact stated in the complaint, is that, the Complainant had applied for loan from the Opposite Party Bank for purchasing a self contained residential flat and entered into an ‘Agreement for Sale’ with the Developer on 19.09.2013 and had paid a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- only towards the Developer. The Complainant has had deposited all relevant documents as per requirement of the Opposite Party Bank and after due searching and upon based on the Searching Report the Opposite Party bank issued a provisional Sanction on 23.09.2013. After few days on request of the Opposite Party bank the Complainant to include his son and wife as Co-Lonee submitted the required documents. Thereafter a Tripartite Agreement was executed among the Complainant, Developer and Opposite Party Bank.
But thereafter the Opposite party bank became reluctant to disburse the loan and the Complainant had failed to pay the scheduled installments towards the developer and on 19.07.2014 the Opposite party Bank sent a letter to the Complainant for complying all terms and conditions which had already been complied with and had already filed the previous I.T. returns and all other relevant documents towards the Bank.
Cont. ……….…. 3
= 3 =
At last on 20.01.2015, the Opposite Party Bank repudiated the loan application of the Complainant by sending a letter to the Complainant stating that the said loan could not be granted on the ground that the I.T. Assessment for the year 2014 – 15 did not permit the bank to grand the loan of Rs. 13,50,000/- only in favour of the Complainant, what amounts to negligence and deficiency in rendering service by the Opposite Party Bank towards the Complainant as the Bank authority might repudiate the said loan earlier than after lapse of 1 ½ years, due to which the value of the flats were increased for which the Complainant could not avail any other own residential flat, for which being victimized and harassed the Complainant has to file the instant case seeking adequate redressal against the Opposite Party Bank.
Resisting the complaint, the Opposite Party filed the Written Version denying the contentions and all material allegations made by the Complainant in the petition of complaint and stating inter alia, that the complainant has no cause of action to file the case and the same is not maintainable.
The specific case of the Opposite Party No. 1 in crisp, is that, as per an Application dated 23.09.2013 by the Complainant for Housing Loan in a credit delivery camp, one Provisional Sanction Letter was issued towards the Complainant on the same date by this Opposite Party Bank wherein it was stated that the final settlement would be issued after complying all guidelines as per the Banking Lending Policy.
Cont. ……….…. 4
= 4 =
In the month of Oct. 2013, the Complainant had submitted an ‘Agreement for Sale’ dated 19.09.2013 along with a Cash Memo of Rs. 1,50,000/- only which the Complainant deposited to the Developer on 19.09.2013 prior to issuing the ‘Provisional Sanction Letter’ in the credit camp on 23.09.2013. The Complainant had submitted his Income certificate which is not sufficient and permissible for final settlement of the said loan due to shortfall of I.T. Return for which the bank asked the Complainant to take the loan of lesser amount but the Complainant disagreed with the same. In the May, 2014, on further request of the Complainant, the opposite party bank issued another letter on 19.07.2014 to comply the terms and conditions within 7 days to dispose the matter but the Complainant came to bank on 21.07.2014 and refused to accept the same. On scrutinizing all the documents filed by the Complainant it was found that the Complainant had one Mortgage Loan which was turned NPA on 30.09.2013 due to non-payment of Loan EMI and another over draft Loan. Furthermore, the as per the I.T. Return submitted by the Complainant it is shown that the Income of the Complainant had been suddenly hiked in the year 2014 – 15 rather than previous 3 years and thereafter on 20.01.2015 the Regional Office of this Opposite Party Bank ultimately repudiated the Loan Application of the Complainant.
The Opposite Party Bank by filing Additional Written Version further stated that when the Bank informed the Complainant his insufficient income for granting loan the Complainant asked to join his son as C-Lonee who has a separate business and separate income but on inspection a closed shop was seen to the bank authority just opposite to Complainant’s place of business and after filing the I.T. Return, it is found that the place of business address of the both were the same which was not permissible.
Cont. ……….…. 5
= 5 =
Thus, this Opposite Party Bank strictly denied any negligence or/ and deficiency on their part in rendering service towards the Complainant and prayed for dismissal of this case.
Point for Consideration
1. Is the complaint maintainable under the C. P. Act ?
2. Was there any negligence or deficiency in service
on the part of the O.Ps ?
3. Is the complainant entitled to get the relief as prayed for ?
Decision with Reasons
All the points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of convenience and brevity.
The main dispute between the Complainant and the Opposite party is that whether the Opposite Party Bank is justified to repudiate the loan application of the Complainant after lapse of 1 ½ years or not.
On overall evaluation of the argument by the Ld. Advocate of the Complainant and the Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Party Bank and on critical appreciation of all the material evidenced on record it is evident that admittedly the Complainant had applied for a Housing Loan on 23.09.2013 from the Opposite Party Bank in a credit delivery camp and a Provisional Sanction Letter was issued by this Opposite Party Bank towards the Complainant on the same date.
Cont. ……….…. 6
= 6 =
The Complainant stated that after lapse of 1 ½ years from the date of issuing the said Provisional Sanction Letter dated 23.09.2013 the Opposite Party Bank had repudiated the said Loan Application on 20.01.2015 which is duly admitted by the Opposite Party Bank in their Written Version.
Critically perusing the entire case record and all photocopies of documents filed by both the Complainant and the Opposite Party Bank it is manifestly revealed that as per the Income Tax Return submitted by the Complainant towards the Opposite Party Bank to comply the terms and conditions of the Bank Authority that the Gross Total Income of the Complainant in the Assessment Year 2011 – 12 was Rs. 1,58,278/- only, in the next Assessment Year 2012 – 13 was Rs. 1,80,607/- only, in the next Assessment Year 2013 – 14 was Rs. 2,00,293/- only and finally in the next Assessment Year 2014 – 15 the Gross Total Income of the Complainant suddenly increased to Rs. 2,74,975/- only which is specifically noticed by the Ld. Advocate of the Opposite Party Bank at the time of hearing argument.
The Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Party Bank draws our attention towards the point that the income of the Complainant has been hiked/increased in the Assessment Year 2014 – 15 in comparison with his income in just previous 3 years as per the Gross Total Income of the Complainant as written in his Income Tax Return for which the Ld. Advocate for Complainant not stated any considerable explanation.
Cont. ……….…. 7
= 7 =
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant further stated that the Opposite Party Bank asked the Complainant to include his son and wife as Co-Lonee due to insufficient income of the Complainant and the Complainant to comply with such had submitted the relevant documents towards the Bank Authority which is also admitted by the Opposite Party Bank.
Moreover, it is also undoubtedly established from the said photocopies of the documents (I.T. Returns of the Complainant named Rabindra Nath Das and his son named Abhijit Das) filed by the Opposite Party Bank before the Forum that the address of the business place of both the Complainant and his son was/is the same and both father and son had/have the same business.
The Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Party Bank further illustrates this point stating that on physical verification of the business place of the Complainant and his son the Complainant showed another shop just opposite to his salon in closed condition which was told by him as his son’s separate shop room but as per the business address written in the I.T. Return of both the Complainant Rabindra Nath Das and his son Abhijit Das was the same.
Furthermore, the Opposite Party Bank specifically stated in their Written Version that on scrutinizing all the documents filed by the Complainant it was found by the Regional Office of the Bank Authority that the Complainant had one Mortgage Loan which was turned NPA on 30.09.2013 due to non-payment of Loan EMI and
Cont. ……….…. 8
= 8 =
also another Over Draft Loan but the Complainant remain silent regarding these fact in his Evidence–in–Chief and stated nothing at the time of hearing argument in this regard which manifestly indicate that the Complainant never denied the fact stated by the Opposite Party Bank about the non-payment of Loan EMI and taking the Over Draft Loan.
So, the unanimous decision of the Forum is that in this fact and circumstances the Opposite Party Bank has absolutely justified repudiating the Loan Application of the Complainant. Furthermore the sanction of any loan towards any applicant is exclusively the discretion of the Bank Authority either to sanction it or to reject the same upon scrutinizing all relevant documents/papers submitted by that applicant and thus in the instant case, the Opposite Party has done no deficiency and negligence towards the Complainant by any means.
Therefore, in the light of the above discussion it is finally and commonly decided by the Forum that the Complainant has failed to prove his case and is not entitled to get relief as prayed for.
In short, the Complainant deserves failure.
In the result, we proceed to pass
O R D E R
That the case be and same is dismissed on contest against the Opposite Party but without any cost. Parties to bear their own cost.
Cont. ……….…. 9
= 9 =
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.
