Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/59/2016

Jagtar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Canara Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Jagtar Singh In person

19 May 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

Consumer Complaint  No.59 of 2016

                                                                                                             Date of institution :  01.06.2016                

                                                                                                            Date of decision    :  19.05.2017

Jagtar Singh aged about 57 years son of late Sh. Sampuran Singh, resident and Numbardar of village Narainan, Tehsil Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

Sukhdev Singh, Employee(Previously Additional charge Manager) of Canara Bank, Branch Chunni Kalan, Tehsil Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

…..Opposite Party

Complaint under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                 

  Sh. Inder Jit, Member

Present :         Sh. T.S.Dhiman, Adv.Cl. for the complainant.

                      Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta, Adv.Cl. for the Opposite party.

ORDER

 

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

                      Complainant, Jagtar Singh aged about 57 years son of late Sh. Sampuran Singh, resident and Numbardar of village Narainan, Tehsil Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the OP) under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.           The complainant, in the month of February 2016, had applied for C.C. limit to Canara Bank, Branch Chunni Kalan. At that time OP was on the post of Manager having additional charge. The complainant requested him that he is in need of money and want to get a loan of Rs.3 lakhs on his own property, which is free from all sort of encumbrances.  The OP told the complainant that for getting the said loan he has to complete some formalities such as Non- encumbrance certificate, legal opinion, latest fard jamabandi etc. and assured that after completion of the said formalities, loan amount will be issued to the complainant. The complainant completed all the formalities by spending Rs.12,500/-. After receiving all the documents, the OP assured the complainant that loan amount of Rs. 3 lakhs will be issued to him till 30^th April 2016. The complainant regularly visited the office of the OP requesting the OP to issue the loan but OP started lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other. Then after joining of New Manager in Canara Bank, the complainant was told that it will take 6/7 months for issuing the loan amount.  The act and conduct of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OP to pay Rs.12,500/-, the amount spent for completing the requisite formalities, Rs.37,500/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainant.
3. The complaint is contested by the OP, who filed written reply. In reply to the complaint, OP stated that the complainant never applied for any CC limit to Canara Bank, Chunni Kalan. It is further stated that the complainant had come in the branch only for inquiring about the loan procedure, but he never applied for any loan.  The complainant was told that the bank will firstly make inquiry with regard to reputation and paying capacity of the complainant and only then he will be required to file his application for loan and other formalities will be completed afterwards.  The complainant was also told that in case it is found that he has paying capacity, only then he will have to complete the formalities of the bank. After conducting the personal inquiry by the OP from the locality and other surrounding areas, it was found that the complainant is a person of quarrelsome nature and a big litigant and the reputation of the complainant is not good in the area. The said fact was told to the complainant and was also told that he will not be sanctioned any loan by the bank.  It is further stated that the documents placed on record by the complainant are not related to the OP. The complaint of the complainant is false, fictitious, wrong, vexatious, vague, baseless, frivolous and misleading. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, the OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. In order to prove his case the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, affidavit of Gulzar Khan Ex. C-2, true copy of application dated 29.03.2016 Ex. C-3, copy of jamabandi Ex. C-4, copy of Khasra Girdawri Ex. C-5, copy of legal opinion Ex. C-6, copy of Non- encumbrance certificate Ex. C-7, copy of fee receipt Ex. C-8 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal OP tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. OP-1, true copies of documents i.e. account statement Ex. OP-2, investigation report Ex. OP-3, copy of judgment mark-A and closed the evidence.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant had contacted the OP for a CC limit as he was in need for the same. He stated that the OP asked the complainant to complete certain formalities  and deposit a sum of Rs. 12,500/- in complainant account and thereafter investigation of the loan amount of Rs. 3 lac shall be allowed. Learned counsel pleaded that the OP intentionally kept on lingering on the matter on one pre text or the other and later on refused the loan of the complainant in an arbitrary manner. He argued that the complainant deserves to be compensated for the act and conduct of the OP as the complainant had to undergo lot of financial as well as mental stress.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP objected to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the complainant. He stated that OP never promised the complainant that his loan shall be approved. He also stated that as pleaded by the complainant no such amount of Rs. 12,500/- were deposited by the complainant in his account and this fact stands proved from the statement of account of complainant(Ex-OP2) wherein the amount mentioned is Rs.1:00/-.Learned counsel pleaded that as per the credit investigation report i.e Ex.OP-3 the complainant did not qualify for the loan as there were lots of discrepancies and further there was a civil litigation between the parties as the same is established from the copy of judgment dated 05.12.2015 i.e Mark- A. He further argued that the present complaint is filed against a private person and no necessary party was impleaded by the complainant, hence the same deserves to be dismissed with special cost.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings, evidence, written arguments and oral submissions, we find force in the submissions made by the Learned counsel for the OP. It is established from the account statement Ex. OP-2, investigation report Ex. OP-3, copy of judgment mark-A that the complainant did not qualify for the said loan and nor a sum of Rs. 12,500/- was deposited by the complainant in his account. Complainant has failed to place on record any such material which can rebut the evidence of the OP. It seems the complainant has filed the present complaint in order to settle his personal grievance against the said Manager of the OP.
8. Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid observation, we find that the present complaint is devoid of any merits, hence the same is hereby dismissed. No orders as to costs.
9. The arguments on the complaint were heard on 05.05.2017 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room

Pronounced

Dated: 19.05.2017

(A.P.S.Rajput)                 President

 

(Inder Jit)                   Member