DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, TEHSIL COMPLEX, M A N S A.
CC No.171 of 2014
Date of Institution: 04.09.2014 Date of Disposal : 13.03.2015
Vipan Kumar S/o Amar Chand S/o Jagan Nath, Hargulal Street, Jain School Street, Mansa, Tehsil and District Mansa.
..... Complainant.
VERSUS
Central Bank of India, through Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Mandir Street, Ward No.13, Mansa, Tehsil and District Mansa.
..... Opposite Party.
Complaint under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
............
Present:-
For complainant : Sh.S.K.Singla, Advocate.
For OP : Sh.Deepak Kumar, Advocate.
Quorum:-
Sh.Surinder Mohan, President.
Sh.Shiv Pal Bansal, Member.
Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member.
ORDER:-
Surinder Mohan, President
Brief facts of the case are that complainant applied for a plot measuring 250 square yard in PUDA Enclave, Mansa with PUDA vide Application No.0651. Complainant moved an application and applied for loan with OP. OP sanctioned loan of Rs.1,75,000/- and Complainant deposited earnest money amounting Rs.1,75,000/- in respect of the aforesaid plot. While sanctioning the loan amount of Rs.1,75,000/-, OP promised to sanction the remaining amount of loan, if plot is alloted to Complainant. Complainant was to pay interest on loan amount. PUDA allotted plot to Complainant and complainant applied to OP for remaining amount, but OP informed that loan cannot be disbursed. Due to this reason Complainant had to surrender the plot. On the surrender of plot, PUDA as per instructions deducted 10% from the earnest money. Complainant has suffered monetary loss due to the fault on the part of OP. OP had initially promised to sanction loan, but after releasing the earnest money, refused to sanction the remaining amount of loan. Due to the act and conduct of OP, complainant had to incur 10% loss on the earnest money deposited by him and had to further pay interest on the loan amount. As such, OP is deficient in rendering service. Due to act and conduct of OP, complainant has been subjected to mental tension and physical harassment. A prayer has been made to direct OP to pay 10% amount of earnest money deducted by PUDA alongwith interest levied, besides Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as costs.
2. In reply, OP has taken several legal objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that this Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter; that complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint; that intricate questions of law and facts are involved in the matter; that Complainant has not come before the Forum with clean hands “one who seeks justice must come to court with
clean hands”; that complainant has failed to disclose any legal and valid cause of action against answering OP; complaint does not qualify ingredients of a valid complaint as envisaged in Section 2(1)(c) of CPA and that complaint is false and frivolous. It is pleaded that Complainant approached replying OP vide his loan application dated 26.12.13 for sanction of loan for 100% of the earnest money of the purchase price of said plot. Said loan amount has been sanctioned as well as disbursed in favour of complainant. Thereafter there was no arrangement between complainant and OP to sanction further loan in his favour. Therefore, OP is not deficient in rendering service towards the complainant. It is strictly denied that replying OP has ever assured the complainant for sanction of loan for balance purchase price of plot. It is clearly mentioned in the terms and conditions of the loan application, that there is no obligation whatsoever on the part of the bank to sanction housing or any other loan to Complainant to pay the balance amount/cost of the plot/flat to Complainant by PUDA.” Act and conduct of complainant shows that he has no own funds for purchasing the said plot. Replying OP is not at fault at any stage. Other paras of the complaint have been denied and OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. In order to prove his case, complainant has tendered into evidence Ex.C-1 affidavit of Vipan Kumar, Ex.C-2 Pamphlet of Mohali Branch, Ex.C-3 Brochure, Ex.C-4 letter of Intent dated 14.3.14, Ex.C-5 Application dated 10.4.14 by Complainant to PUDA for surrender, Ex.C-6 letter dated 11.4.14 by OP to complainant, Ex.C-7 application dated 3.6.14 by Complainant to PUDA for refund of Rs.1,75,000/- and Ex.C-8 letter dated 10.7.14 by PUDA(office order).
4. In order to rebut this evidence, OP has placed on record Ex. OP-1 affidavit of Ankur Madan, Branch Manager, Ex.OP-2 loan application dated 26.12.13 for Rs.1,75,000/-, Ex.OP-3 copy of agreement dated 26.12.13, Ex.OP-4 irrevocable authority letter, Ex.OP-5 Undertaking, Ex.OP-6 copy of letter of deposit of advance cheques, Ex.OP-7 Demand promissory note dated 26.12.13 for Rs.1,75,000/-, Ex.OP-8 Consent clause dated 26.12.13 and Ex.OP-9 letter of waiver dated 26.12.13.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for parties and gone through the evidence adduced on record by them very carefully.
6. There is no dispute that Complainant applied for a PUDA plot and Letter of Intent dated 14.3.14 Ex.C-4 was issued to him. As per brochure Ex.C-3, tentative price of plot measuring 250 sq.yds. was Rs.17,50,000/- and earnest money was Rs.1,75,000/-. 15% amount towards price of plot was to be made within 30 days of issue of Letter of Intent to complete 25% price of plot. As per documents on the file, complainant surrendered the plot with PUDA vide application dated 10.4.14 which is Ex.C-5 on the file. The ground mentioned in the application is that “the Bank has refused to sanction loan as per instructions of their head office and that scheme of PUDA is not liked by the head office and loan is disbursed for home and not for plots.” It is further mentioned that complainant has no source to deposit the remaining amount. The fact remains that Complainant was to deposit remaining 15% of the plot price within 30 days from the issue of Letter of Intent dated 14.3.14. In this manner, Complainant was to deposit 15% amount upto 14.4.14, whereas Complainant surrendered the plot vide application dated 10.4.14.
7. Allegation of complainant has been completely denied by OP on the ground that no such assurance was ever given by OP. Complainant has not attached any document to establish that he had applied for loan of Rs.17,50,000/-. The documents filed by OP reveal that Complainant had executed various documents for raising loan of Rs.1,75,000/-. Loan application for earnest money finance is Ex.OP-2 which shows that Complainant requested for sanction of loan of Rs.1,75,000/- and this loan was sanctioned.
8. It is clearly mentioned in application form Ex.OP-2 that “there is no obligation whatsoever on the part of the Bank to sanction housing or any other loan to Complainant to pay the balance amount/cost of the plot /flat in the event of allotment of plot/flat to Complainant by PUDA.” Ex.OP-3 is agreement dated 26.12.13. Ex.OP-5 is an undertaking given by Complainant. Learned counsel for complainant has laid great stress on Sr. No.2 of undertaking which reads that in case allotment of plot, complainant will avail housing loan from OP bank, however, it is at the sole discretion of bank, which is free to consider the same only upon the merits of his case. It clinches controversy between parties. A plot was allotted by PUDA, complainant was to avail housing loan from OP, but it was sole discretion of the Bank to consider the same upon merits of complainant's case. Decidedly, OP has not considered sanctioning of further loan to Complainant.
9. Complainant in Para No.2 of the complaint has clearly mentioned that he had applied for remaining amount of loan but OP is silent about it. Documents produced on the file by OP reveal that Complainant had earlier applied for loan of Rs.1,75,000/- but as per documents, complainant was to apply afresh for raising loan and only then OP was to consider the case of Complainant on merits. Complainant has not placed on the file any document to show that after issuing of Letter of Intent dated 14.3.14 and before submitting application dated 10.4.14 for surrendering his plot, he ever applied with OP during the intervening period for further loan. Whereas the Complainant has clearly pleaded that he had applied for the loan. In this manner, there is no such evidence to hold that after 14.3.14 and before 10.4.14, complainant ever applied for raising further loan. Since OP is also silent about the same, it was for the Complainant to prove that he had further applied for loan.
10. Learned counsel for OP has relied upon 2014(1)CLT page 245 with the title Manager, Andhra Bank & others v/s M.Jaya Raj, wherein the Hon'ble National Commission was pleased to observe that:
“it was not obligatory on the part of the Bank to sanction loan-merely because loan has not been sanctioned, no deficiency can be attributed on the part of Bank unless action is shown as malafide.
11. The proposition of law laid down in the above authority is not disputed. It was definitely within the power of OP to sanction or not to sanction further loan. But in case complainant applied for fresh loan, it was obligatory on the part of OP to consider his loan application on merits of his case.
12. In such circumstances, complaint stands disposed of with a direction to Complainant that he may seek copies of documents vide which he had applied for loan after issuance of Letter of Intent and may approach the Forum if his case has not been considered by OP on merits. Complainant may approach OP for seeking documents within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
13. Certified copies of order be communicated to the parties free of cost by registered post and file be consigned to the record room.
Announced:
13.03.2015
Neena Rani Gupta, Shiv Pal Bansal, Surinder Mohan,
Member. Member. President.
*neera*
