IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Saturday the 26th day of February, 2011
Filed on 13.5.2010
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
3. Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.107/2010
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Raja. A .Karim 1. The Federal Bank
Subithalayam Convent Square Branch
Power House Ward Alappuzha
Alappuzha
(By Adv. G. Abhilash Kumar) 2. Sri. N.M. Das, Bank Manger
Federal Bank, Convent Square
Branch, Alappuzha
(By Adv. C. Parameswaran)
3. Smt. Jeseentha Louis
Asst. Manager, Federal Bank
Convent Square Branch
Alappuzha
O R D E R
SRI. JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
The complainant case in short is as follows: - The complainant approached the 1st opposite party bank for a loan for the educational purpose of his son. To the said effect, the complainant on 31st August 2009 filed an application with the 2nd opposite party. In line with the instruction of the 2nd opposite party, the complainant contacted the loan officer, 3rd opposite party. The complainant produced the entire documents as required by her. Being aggrieved by the inordinate delay, the complainant lodged a complaint with the head office of the opposite parties. With the result, the 2nd opposite party called the complainant up, and directed him to file an application afresh for the loan. The complainant promptly complied with the same, but the 3rd opposite party still exhibited the same laxity. She caused the complainant affix his signature on several papers and required the complainant to produce more documents one after the other. The complainant even went over to Salem Engineering College wherein his son pursues his course to procure further documents, the third opposite party insisted. At length, the 3rd opposite party required the complainant to avail an LIC Policy from one of her friends as a precondition to get the complainant's loan sanctioned. The complainant is impecunious. He is a taxi driver. He lives in a rented house. The complainant impressed upon the opposite parties his helplessness. His loan was rejected. Application was returned. To add woes to his worries, the complainant was ridiculed. The complainant sustained mental agony, pecuniary loss and physical discomfort. Got aggrieved on this, the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and other relief.
2. On notice being served, the opposite party turned up and filed version. The contentions of the opposite parties are that the complainant suppressed material facts, and the complaint is mere experimental. The complainant is not a consumer of the opposite parties. Initially, the complainant filed an application for a loan amount of Rs.4,04,100/-(Rupees four lakhs four thousand and one hundred only). For the loans of the said amount and beyond, as per the existing norms sufficient guarantee was indispensable, the opposite parties allege. The same being pointed out to the complainant, the complainant filed fresh application on 6th October 2009. As part of procedural enquiry. the opposite party issued letter dated 8th October 2009 to the college and sought report from CIBIL. Going by the report, the opposite party noticed that the complainant approached State Bank of India for an educational loan of 4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only). In the further enquiry that followed, it is surfaced that the said loan was almost sanctioned. When verified the same with the complainant, the complainant retreated from the loan requirement from the opposite party. The 2nd application filed by the complainant with the opposite party is only to derive illegal enrichment. In fact, it is the complainant who unnecessarily took away the precious time and energy of the opposite parties. The complaint is only to be dismissed with cost to the opposite parties.
3. The complainant evidence consists of the testimony of the complainant
himself as PWl, and the documents Exts. Al to A9 were marked. Ext. A1 is the copy of the complaint lodged before diverse authorities, A2 series are the copy of the letters, A3 is the copy of the letter from banking Ombudsman, A4 is the copy of the letter from the Hon'ble Minister, A5 is the copy of the letter issued by the Banking Ombudsman, A6 is the copy of the letter from the Reserve Bank of India, A7 is the copy of the letter issued by Banking Ombudsman, A8 & A9 are the relevant portion of Malayalam daily. On the side of the opposite parties no evidence have been adduced.
4. Keeping in view the contentions of the opposite parties, the questions come up before us for consideration are:-
(l) Whether the complainant availed another educational loan from the other bank when the similar loan application was pending before the opposite parties?
(2) Whether the complainant sustained any harassment at the hands of the opposite party?
(3) Relief and cost?
5. The complainant approached the opposite parties for an education loan. According to the opposite parties the amount sought was beyond the prescribed limit. The amount so sought by the complainant involves the question of security. Hence the complainant was instructed to submit revised application for lesser amount. The complainant complied with the same. In the name of the said loan the opposite parties required umpteen documents. Eventually the complainant was asked to avail an insurance policy from a stranger to get the loan sanctioned. It was beyond the reach of the complainant who was a mere taxi driver. The opposite party refused the said loan. Insulting the complainant, the opposite party handed back him the loan application, the complainant alleges. We went through the evidence and pleadings adduced by the parties. At the first blush itself, it appears that the version advanced by the opposite parties is inconsistent. At the very same moment we remind ourselves that we shall not jump to conclusion on the basis of a mere impression we get in the beginning with out there being sufficient materials to support our initial notion. As such we anxiously analyzed the materials put on record by both the parties. It seems that the opposite parties attributes the delay of sanctioning the loan to complainant’s oversight as to the amount sought as loan. The opposite parties were also constrained to go through the procedural formalities in allowing the said loan to the complainant. The college wherein the complainant's son does his course had to be contacted. Similarly, the report from the CIBIL was to be verified. However, the opposite parties declined to sanction or disburse the said loan to the complainant. According to the opposite parties, the CIBIL, report suggested that the complainant approached another bank, viz SBI for a similar loan. On the basis of this report, the opposite parties turned down the loan sought by the complainant, the opposite parties, contend.
6. On a closer scrutiny of the pleadings of the opposite patty and other materials available on record, the opposite parties appear to have taken incongruent stands on diverse occasions. In the version, filed by the complaint sometimes it is stated that the complainant's son is already in receipt of the require loan amount from SBI and some other times as 'Upon enquiry it was revealed that the student had approached the opposite parties bank after the loan required was almost sanctioned by another bank.’ That apart, it is not worthy that the opposite parties did not make it a point in which SBI branch; the complainant approached for/availed the said loan. It goes with out saying that mere making statements does not take the place of proof. Taking into account the facts and circumstance of the instant case, and the materials available on record, it appears that the opposite parties for the reasons best known to them caused the under privileged complainant run from pillar to post. An impecunious but enthusiastic father who zealously longed to arrange money to prosecute the studies of his son was treated heartlessly. Needless to say, the case of the opposite parties is inconsistent. Also it appears that the complainant was directed to take an insurance policy by the opposite parties. It gives out the impression that the loan was virtually sanctioned to the complainant by the opposite parties. Thereafter the opposite parties might have changed their stand. We are of the view that after sanctioning the loan , the opposite parties for the reason best known to them conveniently kept away from disbursing the said loan. We have no hesitation to hold that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant sustained untold miseries at the hands of the opposite parties.
10. In view of the facts and finding the present case, the opposite parties are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the complainant. The opposite parties shall comply with the order within 30 days of receipt of this order.
11. Before parting with this, we may hasten to observe that, the institutions like the opposite parties are not expected to adopt such an insensitive stance towards the poor laity who approaches them seeking loans for prosecuting the studies of their studious children. They have to bear in mind the very spirit and purpose of similar institutions. They shall adopt a more liberal, beneficial and humane approach in similar issues in future.
In the result, the complaint is allowed accordingly. No order as to cost.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 26th day of February, 2011.
Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah:
Sd/- Sri.K. Anirudhan:
Sd/- Smt.N.Shajitha Beevi:
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Raja.A.Karim (Witness)
Exst.A1 - Copy of the complaint lodged before diverse authorities
Ext.A2 series - Copy of the letters
Ext.A3 - Copy of the letter from Banking Ombudsman
Ext.A4 - Copy of the letter from the Hon’ble Minister
Ext.A5 - Copy of the letter issued by the Banking Ombudsman
Ext.A6 - Copy of the letter from the Reserve Bank of India
Ext.A7 - Copy of the letter issued by the Banking Ombudsman
Ext.A8 & A9 - Relevant portion of the Malayalam daily
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:-pr/-
Compared by:-
