KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL  NO. 8/12

JUDGMENT DATED: 25.08.2012

PRESENT

SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR          : JUDICIAL MEMBER

The Branch Manager,

Syndicate Bank,

Mulleria Branch,                                         : APPELLANT

Mulleria, Kasaragod Taluk & Dist.

(By Adv:Sri.G.S.Kalkura)

          Vs.

Chandrika.K, W/o Achutha Bhat,

Choodeamoola House,                                      : RESPONDENT

Mulleria, Kasaragod Taluk & Dist.

(By Adv: Sri.Jayanthalal.M)

JUDGMENT

SHRI. K.CHANDRADAS NADAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER

The appellant was the opposite party in CC.266/10 in the CDRF, Kasaragod. The respondent was the sole complainant.  She alleged that she had applied for a loan with the opposite party in order to start a coconut shell charcoal production unit under the Prime Minister’s Employment Generation Programme.  The opposite party had agreed to sanction loan to a tune of Rs.8 lakhs. On the basis of the promise made by the opposite party, the complainant procured all documents necessary for sanctioning the loan and produced the same before the opposite party.  The complainant had undergone training for running such an unit.  But the opposite party refused to sanction loan on flimsy grounds.  This amounted to deficiency in service.  Hence the complaint.

2.      The appellant/opposite party contended that when the officers of the bank visited the proposed site it was found that the husband of the complainant Mr.Achutha Bhat had earlier run a coconut shell charcoal unit at the place and there was wide spread protest from the people of the locality against running such a unit.  They complained to various authorities in respect of the pollution emanating from the factory.  Their grievance was that serious health problems arose from the smoke and pollution that emanated from the factory.  Ultimately the Panchayat authority interfered and stopped the husband of the complainant from running the factory.  That unit was not so far opened.  During local inspection also the inhabitants of the locality complained about the serious health problems they suffered from the pollution caused by the factory run by Achutha Bhat.  Under the above circumstances the opposite party was not in a position to sanction the loan.  There was no deficiency in service on their part.

3.      Before the CDRF, Kasaragod the complainant gave oral evidence. Exts.A1 to A13 were marked on the side of the complainant.  One witness was examined on the side of the appellant/opposite party and Exts.B1 and B2 were marked on their side.  The Forum as per order dated:30.09.2011 held that the contentions raised by the opposite party were very feeble and failure to sanction loan to the complainant had caused mental agony, sufferings and loss to the complainant.  Hence ordered the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and costs of Rs.5000/- to the complainant.  The only question that arises for consideration is whether deficiency in service on the part of the appellant is established and the CDRF Kasaragod was justified in awarding compensation to the complainant.

4.      Admittedly the complainant had applied for a loan with the appellant bank to start a coconut shell charcoal production unit.  The definite allegation is that the appellant had agreed to sanction loan to the tune of Rs.8.lakhs.  The definite contention is that the appellant never agreed to sanction the loan. On the contrary when local inspection was made, it was revealed that the husband of the complainant had earlier run a similar unit which was stopped by the Panchyat authorities on the face of stiff opposition from the local people against causing pollution.  According to the appellant finding that there would be similar opposition and it would not be feasible to sanction loan to the complainant her application was refused.  There is absolutely no evidence to indicate that the appellant had infact agreed to sanction the loan as alleged.  The only document connecting the appellant and the complainant is Ext.A2 letter sent by the Manager of the appellant bank.  That was only a letter seeking production of certain documents and nowhere it is promised that loan would be sanctioned.  The Forum thought that the complainant took serious trouble in getting documents such as consent of the Pollution Control Board because of the promise to sanction the loan.  It is pertinent to notice that even otherwise in order to run such a factory, documents such as consent of the Pollution Control Board, green channel certificate, building permit etc were necessary and such formalities can in no way be connected with an assumed promise to sanction bank loan.  The Forum also felt that since the complainant had sufficient capacity to repay the loan nothing prevented the bank from sanctioning the loan.  Such an approach is not permitted and  a Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum cannot substitute its own discretion and hold that the bank erred in not sanctioning the loan.  It is pertinent to notice that the application for the loan submitted by the complainant was never sanctioned by the bank. So there was no scope for committing any deficiency in service at that stage.  In fact the bank had not offered its service by way of sanctioning the loan.  So, the Forum erred in sanctioning compensation based on the assumed mental agony sufferings and losses to the complainant. Hence the appeal is liable to be allowed.

In the result the appeal is allowed and the order of the CDRF, Kasargod in CC.266/10 dated:30.09.2011 is set aside.  The complaint is dismissed but without costs.

K. CHANDRADAS NADAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER

VL.