Presented by Smt. A.Behera, Member:-
Facts of the case:-
Complainant wanted to take a loan to start a Poultry Broiler Farm in his area and for that he contacted Opposite Party No.3(three) who guided the Complainant about the formalities to be completed before the loan is sanctioned. Accordingly Complainant was asked to submit the land deeds and some other documents relating to the immovable property which was to be kept as security and it was also the proposed venue to the said poultry farm. Then Opposite Party No.3(three) asked for a scheme on the poultry farm which again the Complainant contacted and got from Sub-divisional Veterinary Officer, Padmpur, who sent it to the District Agricultural Officer, Padampur for approval and necessary action further, who sent the same proposal to Opposite Party No.3(three) recommending 25%(twenty five percent) subsidy as per provisions.
The Complainant was directed to collect the EC of the proposed land/side which he collect. Opposite Party No.3(three) sent all the property documents to their approved lawyer for verification and legal opinion which was obtained with a positive recommendation.
Then Opposite Party No.3(three) recommended the entire loan papers to Area Manager, Bargarh for sanction who is Opposite Party No.1(one) here in this case Opposite Party No.1(one) considered all the papers and sent back the papers after sanctioning the proposed loan or further action by Opposite Party No.3(three).
Opposite Party No.3(three) further asked the Complainant to collect clearness from other financial institution and directed the Complainant to start the construction work and the Complainant started the earth work for laying foundation.
Till this time no money was released to the Complainant although the Complainant requested for the same several times.
That on a later date 20/06/2010 the Opposite Party No.3(three) objected to the title deed, the same being in the name of others and also pointed out some other things and asked for certain legal documents to be collected which the petitioner obeyed, collected and submitted.
In this course this Opposite Party No.3(three) did not gave any printed form to collect no dues certificate from the financial institutions.
That while proceeding with the work of collection of documents, papers, making of project, starting the ground work the Complainant sustained cost of Rs.40,000/-(Rupees forty thousand)only along with all the pain and hard work and time spent on complying with the directions of Opposite Party No.3(three) on the other hand the Opposite Party No.3(three) showing no sympathy to whatever done by the petitioner returned the loan documents without assigning any reason violating the principles of natural justice and consumer laws hence this case.
The case of the Opposite Parties according to their version filed on Dt.24/05/2010 are:-
That the case against the Opposite Party have no merit and not maintainable.
That there is no occurrence of deficiency of service so the case again is not maintainable at all.
That in many decided cases judged before about issues like this the complaint is not maintainable, to establish this contention Opposite Parties cited decision as follows:-
(a) CPR Vol II page 16 NC (No mention of year).
There could be not deficiency of service before sanction of loan. In the present case no sanction of loan occurred.
(b)2001 NCJ Page-4 N.C.:-
Corporate Bank Vs Somenath Gupta and others.
Bank loan not sanctioned by Head Office, assurance by Bank (Branch Manager) that loan will be sanctioned. Subsidy amount provided by BFDA was payable only after sanction of loan by Bank. Sufficient security acceptable to bank not provided. No deficiency of service.
(c)CPR 1993 (I) page 103 N.C:-
Ahsok Prabhakar Vs State Bank of India and others.
The refusal to finance the unit does not constitute deficiency of banking by the instant case the head office head taken decision after due application of mind not to sanction the loan and accordingly the Opposite Party No.3(three) has communicated the matter to the Complainant.
Again the Opposite Parties also have contended that the Complainant is not a consumer as per Consumer Protection Act-1986, because the proposed poultry farm business is a profit making one and not just earning to support himself and his family.
Complainant relies on the following documents in support of his case and Complainant also filed some other documents on Dt.06/02/2013 in support of their case.
(a) Xerox copies of loan application form.
(b) Property valuation report.
© Project report.
(d) Legal opinion of the Bank Advocate.
(e) Encumbrance Certificate from Sub-Register, Padampur.
(f) E.C. From Sub-Register, Sohella.
(g) Sanction Order of the Area Manager Dt.31/12/2009.
(h) Rufusal letter of the Bank Dt.10/06/2010.
(i) No objection certificate of other Financial Institution.
(j) Copy of Pleader Notice and Money Receipt.
Opposite Parties No.2(two) and No. 3(three) filed their version on Dt.24/11/2011 and contended as following:-
(a) That there is no cause of action against the Opposite Party and complaint petition is not maintainable.
(b) Opposite Party No.1(one) is no way involved in the present case.
© The claim of the Complaint that he is proposing this poultry farm to earn his livelihood is not true.
(d) The documents pertaining to land valuation, legal opinion and land deeds etc are not true and denied.
(e) The Opposite Parties also denied the allegations made against them in the Complaint petition and pray to dismiss the case.
The Opposite Parties have also relied upon certain decision to fortify their case.
(1) CPR 2001 Vol-11 page 16(sixteen) para 10 NC.
Lt. Col. S.K. Bhatia (Retd) Vrs Pubjab Financial Corporation and anothers.
(2) CPR 1993 (I) Page 103.
Ashok Prabhakar Vs State Bank of India and others.
(3) CPR 2003 Vol-3 Page 119 N.C.
Niwas Spinnning Mills Ltd. Vs Bank of India.
(4) NCJ 2001 Page NC.
Corporate Bank Vs Somenath Gupta and others.
(5) CPR 1996 (I) page 66 NC.
M/s Bhatia Poultry Farm Vrs M/s Keswaramani Hatcheries.
Hearing was complete on Dt.02/04/2013, Parties submitted their respective grievances and cases elaborately through their advocates, perused the case record and documents attached therewith.
Issue to decide:-
Whether the complaint is maintainable ?
Whether not sanctioning of a proposed loan is deficiency in service ?
Whether the Complainant is eligible to get compensation if so to what quanton and under what circumstances ?
Issue No. 1(one), Whether the complaint is maintainable ?
It has come out from the documents filed and attached with the record, that the Complainant has approached the Opposite Parties for sanction of a loan to start a poultry farm sanction of a loan to start a poultry farm and it was sanctioned vide the letter of the controlling Office, Sambalpur, Area (III), Bargarh No. AM/III/ADV/1139, dated 31/12/2009, where in page 3(three) of the above letter a term loan Rs.8,85,000/-(Rupees eight lakh eighty five thousand)only is sanctioned. This piece of document comes with the personalized letter head of the Opposite Parties. But bears no seal when signed by the designee. However though the Opposite Parties have denied individually and jointly of loan being sanctioned they have not dispute the document filed by the Complainant neither charged it as forged one or otherwise.
Section-2(C)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act-1986, clearly provides that an application complaining unfair trade service by my trader can be entertained by Consumer Forum.
Entrant Consumer Protection Act-1986, Section-2(C)(i) :-
“Complaint” means any allegation in writing made by a Complainant that – Section-2(C)(i) “an unfair trade practice or a restrictive trade practice has been adopted by any trader or service provider”.
Again the Opposite Parties No.2(two) and No.3(three) vide their version (para-ii) that the said so called sanctioned letter was only foundered and loan was not sanctioned at all as the authorized agency to sanction the loan changed and post of Opposite Party No.1(on e) was abolished. So loan is not sanctioned. But to this contention of the Opposite parties complainant has filed the sanction document which has been numbered and dated, but if the Opposite Parties are saying that this has not happened then it is a serious discrepany on the part of the Opposite Parties by not communicating the status if the loan application and keeping the complainant in confusion and misguided through other overt acts for which the Complainant got the impression that the loan has already been sanctioned. So he proceeded with the works without doubts in mind till he got the letter from the Opposite parties about return of loan proposal dated 10/06/2010 vide No. UGB/Misc/2013. This piece of document again mentions in the final para that the proposal is refunded for further action on the part of the Complainant. Which clearly indicates the mischievous intentions of the Opposite Parties to avoid the liabilities. So the Forum feels that the loan is approved and the Complainant is a loanee thus a consumer of the Bank. Another factor which leads to this belief of the Forum is that, it is already admitted by both the Parties via documents as well as while oral submission that this Complainant has already availed dairy loan from the Opposite Parties so he is having relation ship with the Opposite Parties as well. The contention of the Opposite parties that because, it is project for commercial purpose the Complainant is not a consumer and this Complaint is not maintainable. This is not acceptable by the Forum because all the documents filed with the case records supplied that he is a former and engaged in farming to support himself and his family and he was doing dairy farming for which is allied to farming and agriculture as well as poultry farming is attached to agricultural activities so no commercial purpose. The admission about the Complainant being trained for poultry farming supports this.
Issue No. 2(two), Whether not sanctioning of a proposed loan is deficiency in service ?
Whether not sanctioning a proposal loan is deficiency of service. Here Forum considered the submission with case and one found that two documents related to this issue speake differently on the matter while one document says that the loan is sanctioned on dated 31/12/2009, another letter document speak about return of the loan proposal vide letter dated 20/06/2010, questions is raised here if one believe the returning letter into court is that, if the loan papers mare not fully furnished and completed how the other piece of document approving of loan proposal got created and why that was officially not communicated to the Complainant and kept him in dark. Not giving clear cut written directions to the Complainant about the formalities and procedure is also not a fair practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.
Opposite Parties have relied on several citations favoring their contention Forum also agrees that sanctioning or not sanctioning a proposal loan is plainly prerogative discretion of the Bank. But it should be fair and transparent which is not seen in this particular case and for the carelessness and negligence of Opposite Parties the Complainant moved with his plans and incurred costs, which is unfair trade service on the part of the Opposite Parties because a reasonable standard of fairness is expected from the Opposite Parties being in public service and business. This Complainant being an old customer and loanee of the Bank is well associated with the Opposite Parties and was completing all documents as per their directions, so after successful sanction of a loan for dairy farm and with full payment of the earlier loan how this loan proposal even after all formalities one completed was not seen as feasible by the Opposite Parties is doubtful, when all the documents and papers required by them are fulfilled and some documents reveals that the Complainant has undergone a training present to run a poultry farm by government agencies. So the intention of Opposite Parties seen to be malafied plying with the individual customer and thus under the circumstances liable for unfair trade practice.
Issue No. 3(three), Whether the Complainant is eligible to get compensation if so to what quantum and under what circumstances ?
Complainant was an old customer of the Opposite Parties and already completed an old finance clearing all the dues and to avail the new loan he started the procedure with the guideline of Opposite Parties through their employees/agent with whom the Complainant was constantly in touch. So it is presumed that he moved ahead because he got confidence and impression that his loan is approved and he will get the money soon and not done all the work sou-moto, so liable to be compensated by Opposite Parties for whose inaction and ill action or no action this belief cropped up on the part of the Complainant.
So the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally one liable of unfair trade practice.
Under the facts and circumstance mentioned and disclosed above the Forum order the following:-
- O R D E R -
The Opposite Parties are directed, jointly and severally to pay Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only to the Complainant, as compensation for the losses suffered by the Complainant along with another Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only as cost for all the harassment, sufferings and litigation, within one month of this Order, failing which the awarded amount carries an interest of 18%(eighteen percent) per annum till the final payment of the award amount.
The Complaint allowed and disposed of accordingly.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
I agree, I agree, I agree,
(Smt. Anjali Behera) (Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash) (Miss Rajlaxmi Pattnayak)
M e m b e r. M e m b e r. P r e s i d e n t. .
