Kerala

StateCommission

A/16/554

MANAGER DHANLAXMI BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

GOPALAKRISHNAN P V - Opp.Party(s)

B MADHUKUMAR

24 Jun 2019

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHALANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

                                       

APPEAL NUMBER 554/16

JUDGMENT DATED :24.06.2019

 

(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.45/14

on the file of CDRF, Kasaragod)

PRESENT

SRI.T.S.P.MOOSATH                        : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT.BEENA KUMARI.A                   : MEMBER

APPELLANT/ OPPOSITE PARTY
 

Dhanalaxmi Bank, Kayyur Branch, Cheemani.P.O, Kasargod

Rep.by its Manager, Mr.Linto.S, Akkara, S/o.Sebastian Akkara, Residing at Ollur, Thrissur

 

(BY Adv.Sri.B.Madhu kumar)

 

                                        VS

 

RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT

 

Gopalakrishnan.P.V, S/o.V.Kunhikannan, Pazhassi Veedu, Manathadam, Thimiri.P.O, Kasaragod

                                    JUDGMENT

SRI.T.S.P.MOOSATH        : JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                    The opposite party in CC.No.45/2014 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kasaragod, in short, the district forum has filed the appeal against the order passed by the district forum by which they were directed to pay Rs 25,000/- as compensation with cost of Rs 5000/-.

 

          2. The averments contained in the complaint are in brief as follows. The complainant approached the opposite party for availing loan under Prime Minister’s Rozgar Yojana as self employment purpose with an intention to start a furniture manufacturing unit and he had submitted all the relevant documents as per the instruction of the opposite party. The District Khadi and Village Industries Office, Kasaragod forwarded the proposal of the complainant as per the letter dated 26.11.2013 for consideration to the opposite party by presenting a project report of Rs 972200/-. It was informed by the opposite party that the complainant should be present before the bank with all the relevant documents mentioned as per registered letter. The same was received to the complainant on 04.01.2014 with a direction to approach the bank on 05.01.2014. Immediately after receiving all the documents the complaint presented the same before the bank. Subsequently after three months the opposite party informed through telephone that the project of the complainant is not viable and the same is required to the District Khadi and Village Industries Office. Due to the act of the opposite party the complainant had to suffer irreparable loss and hardships and mental agony and hence the complaint.

 

              3.  The opposite party filed version by admitting that the complainant as per letter dated 26.11.2013 approached the opposite party bank for a loan which was forwarded by the District Khadi and Village Industry. The Project officer as per the letter dated 26.11.2013 instructed this opposite party to consider the project on its merit if found viable and bankable by the financing bank. The opposite party as per letter dated 30.12.2013 informed the complainant to present before bank on 05.01.2014 along with all necessary documents for consideration of his proposal. But the complainant produced the project report and other related documents to the opposite party on 03.02.2014 and this opposite party forwarded the documents and project report to the Regional Credit Committee of the bank for consideration. On 07.02.2014 the proposal was put up to the higher competent authorities for consideration and after scrutiny and evaluation the bank found that the proposal is not technically viable and bank cannot extend credit facility to the complainant. Since the proposal submitted by the competent complainant did not meet the required parameters the bank rejected the proposal. There is no delay or negligence on the part of the bank and hence there is no deficiency in service from the side of the bank. Therefore the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed in the complaint and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

           4. Complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A5 were marked on his side. DW1 was examined and Exts.B1 & B2 were marked on the side of the opposite party. Considering the evidence adduced by the parties and hearing both sides the district forum has passed the impugned order. Aggrieved by the order passed by the district forum the opposite party has preferred the present appeal.

 

              5. Heard both sides. Perused the records.

              6. There is no dispute to the fact that the complainant approached the opposite party for availing loan under the Prime Minister’s Rozgar Yojana as self employment purpose with an intention to start a furniture manufacturing unit and the District Khadi and Village Industries Office, Kasargod forwarded the application of the complainant to the opposite party for consideration. The Project Officer as per the letter dated 26.11.2013 instructed the opposite party to consider the application of the complainant. The opposite party informed the complainant to present before them with necessary documents on 05.01.2014. According to the complainant he received the intimation from the bank only on 04.01.2004. So he could not appear before the bank with the necessary documents since it was not a possible to procure the documents required by the opposite party bank. The complainant produced necessary documents before the opposite party only on 03.02.2014 and the opposite party forwarded the same to the Regional Credit Committee of the bank for consideration. On 07.02.2014 the proposal was put up to the higher competitive authorities for consideration and after scrutiny and evaluation the bank found that the proposal is not technically viable and the bank cannot extent credit facility to the complainant. Since the proposal submitted by the complainant did not need required parameters, the bank rejected the proposal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court and the National Commission in a number of decisions held that it is the discretionary power of the bank in granting loans and advance amounts, considering various facts and refusal of the part of the bank to grant loan does not amount to deficiency in service. It was held that the financial institutions exercise their discretion in accordance with their best judgment after taking into consideration relevant factors. If the loan or financial accommodation is not granted after taking into consideration of relevant factors it cannot be stated that there was any deficiency of service as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. So because of the fact that the opposite party has rejected the application of the complainant for granting the loan it cannot be found that there was deficiency in service on their part.

 

                     7. The main allegation / grievance the complainant is that the opposite party has kept his application in granting loan, for consideration for three months and subsequently it was rejected. The district forum found that there was delay on the part of the opposite party bank in considering the loan application submitted by the complainant and the delay in considering the application amounts to deficiency in service and hence the complainant is entitled to get compensation. The counsel for the appellant submitted that the finding of the district forum that there was delay on their part in considering the loan application of the complainant is not correct and there was no delay on the part of the opposite party in considering the loan application of the complainant. He submitted that the proposal has been received by the opposite party on 10.12.2013 and on 30.12.2013 they had issued Ext.A2 letter to the complainant to appear before them with the documents mentioned in that letter. But the complainant furnished the documents only on 03.02.2014. It is the case of the complainant that he received Ext.A2 letter on 04.01.2014 and it was not possible for him to produce the documents required in that letter and present before the opposite party on 05.01.2014. Anyway it is an admitted fact that the complainant produced documents before the opposite party only on 03.02.2014 and the opposite party forwarded the same to the Regional Credit Committee of the bank for consideration. On 07.02.2014 after scrutiny and evaluation the Regional Credit Committee observed that the proposal is not viable and bank cannot extend the credit facility to the complainant. The bank has returned the proposal to the sponsoring agency by letter dated 12.02.2014 and the same was informed to the complainant. So it can be seen that there was no delay on the part of the opposite party for considering the loan application of the complainant. It was observed by the district forum that viability of the project submitted by the complainant can be ascertained by the opposite party as soon as it was presented before them and the concerned Manager can reach a conclusion regarding the viability of the project and profit of the proposed business and if he was satisfied that it was not viable, he ought to have rejected the application on the first instance and without forwarding the same to the Regional Credit Committee and wait for their reply. If such a course of action is taken by the manager of the opposite party there would not have any occasion for the complainant to run from pillar to post for procuring the documents to be produced before the opposite party. The counsel for the complainant submitted that the said observation of the district forum is not correct. The power for sanctioning the PMRY loan is vested with the Regional Credit Committee. Further the district forum failed to consider the fact that every financial institution has to follow certain procedure in order to satisfy itself whether the loan applied can be sanctioned. For that purpose the financial institutions has to verify and consider necessary documents such as Estimate, Project report, documents showing the financial capacity etc and only when it is satisfied that the project to be financed is technically feasible and economically viable the loan can be sanctioned. So the observation of the district forum that the concerned Manager would have considered the viability of the project and profit of the proposed business and he ought to have dismissed the loan application of the complainant if he was satisfied that the same cannot be allowed and if he had taken such a course of action no delay would have been occurred and inconvenience caused to the complainant in procuring the documents would have been avoided is baseless. On going through the evidence we consider that there is no willful delay or latches on the part of the opposite party in considering the loan application of the complainant and there is no negligence on their part. So the finding of the district forum that there was delay on the part of the opposite party in considering the loan application of the complainant and its amounts to deficiency in service and hence the complainant is entitled for compensation is not sustainable and is not liable to be set aside. We do so. Consequently the order passed by the district forum directing the opposite party to pay compensation and Rs 25,000/- with cost of Rs 5000/- to the complainant is also liable to be set aside. We do so.

 

                     In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order passed by the district forum is set aside and the complaint stand dismissed.

                     Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs in the appeal.

                     Refund the amount of Rs 15,000/- deposited by the appellant, to them, on filing proper application.                    

 

 

T.S.P.MOOSATH       : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

BEENA KUMARI.A           : MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

Be/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION

SISUVIHALANE

VAZHUTHACADU

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

                                       

APPEAL NUMBER 554/16

JUDGMENT DATED :24.06.2019