This appeal has been filed by the appellant UCO Bank and Ors. against the order dated 10.12.2013 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in Original Complaint No.3 of 2011.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that in 2005, the respondent Nos.1 & 2 approached the appellant bank for the property situated at Jodhpur having 4 blocks namely, Blocks A,B,C and D and the loan in the present case was granted for entire block of the said property.  On 3.9.2005, a house loan was granted to the respondents herein for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rs.Fifteen lacs only) under ‘UCO Shelter Scheme’. On 3.9.2005 for the grant of aforesaid loan, the respondents kept as security with the bank Original sale deed of Smt. Gulbahar Bano dated 15.1.1987. It was agreed that the said loan amount was repayable in 240 EMIs for a sum of Rs.13,290/- per month starting from the month of March 2006.  On 15.1.2011, the respondents herein requested for the statement of their loan account to be submitted with some other bank and the same was duly given by the appellant bank.    In the month of May, 2011 the respondents herein filed a consumer complaint before the State Commission, being consumer complaint case No.3/2011 praying inter alia to direct the bank to return photocopy of relinquishment deed and the original GPA or in the alternative to grant a loan of Rs.50,00,000/- to the respondents herein and to grant a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- and a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- for business loss and Rs.45,00,000/- for damages and Rs.55,000/- as litigation expenses.  The appellant bank submitted its detailed reply denying the averments raised by the respondents herein.  The respective parties also led their evidence. On 10.12.2013, by its judgment and order dated 10.12.2013, the State Commission allowed the said complaint in part as under:-

“12.  The present complaint of the complainants is partially allowed jointly and severally against the non petitioners bank.  The non-petitioners shall provide within two months to the complainants, the photocopies of relinquishment deed (dated 13.4.1970) executed by Ishaq Mohammed @ Ors. in favour of Hasan Mohammed & Ors. and certified copy of General Power of Attorney executed by Hanif Mohammed @ Ors. in favour of Saiyad Mohammad.   In case the non petitioners fail to provide the copies of the aforesaid documents to the complainants, then the bank shall sanction loan to the complainants as per their requirement and as per rules, regulations and conditions of the bank.

        The non petitioners shall also pay to the complainants within two months from today an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One lac) as compensation for mental agony for not providing the desired documents to them.  In case of non payment of aforesaid amount to the complainants within the said time, the bank shall also pay to the complainants an interest of 9% p.a. of the aforesaid amount. The complainants shall also get from the non petitioners an amount of Rs.20,000/-. (Rs. twenty thousand) as cost of proceeding.”    

3.      Hence the present appeal by the appellant bank.

4.      Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.  Learned counsel for the appellants stated that the State Commission has passed an order for sanctioning of the loan to the complainants required by them.  This order of the State Commission is beyond jurisdiction of the State Commission as no consumer forum can direct a bank to sanction loan to a party as this is sole discretion of the bank to sanction loan to a party and this discretion is not arbitrary, but based on guidelines of the bank for evaluating credit worthiness of the party.  It was stated by the learned counsel that the complainants have alleged in the complaint that the original general power of attorney given by Mr. Hanif Mohd. to Mr. Sayed Mohd. was filed with the bank while submitting the papers for sanction of loan, but the same is not available with the bank.  Complaint was filed in respect of two documents. First being photocopy of the relinquishment deed executed by Isak Mohd. dated 13.04.1970 and the second being the original general power of attorney executed by Hani Mohd. and others in favour of Sayed Mohd. s/o Hasan Mohd. The State Commission has ordered the appellant bank to provide a photocopy of relinquishment deed dated 13.04.1970 and the certified copy of general power of attorney issued by Hani Mohd., failing which the petitioner bank shall sanction loan to the complainants as per their requirement.  The learned counsel stated that the bank has obtained the certified copy of relinquishment deed dated 13.4.1970 from the Registrar’s office as this was a registered document and the bank is ready to provide the same to the complainants.  The bank does not have the original or photocopy of the general power of attorney issued by Hanif Mohd. and therefore, the certified copy of the same cannot be supplied to the complainants and therefore, impliedly, the bank will have to sanction loan  as per the requirement of the complainants.  The bank is aggrieved by this order.  It was stated by the learned counsel for the bank that on the basis of the said power of attorney, the sale has already taken place and the sale deed executed by Sayed Mohd. (the GPA holder) in favour of Smt. Gulbahar dated 15.1.1987 is already available and there is no dispute regarding this sale deed.  The fact is that neither the original nor the photocopy of general power of attorney issued by Hanif Mohd. was filed with the bank.  Moreover, it is clear from the para 13 of the sale deed wherein the GPA holder Sayed Mohd. has stated that he was handing over the photocopy of general power of attorney to the purchaser.  The following is actually mentioned:-

“13. I am executing in your favour which power of attorney till today was in existence and which till date prior to now never has been cancelled, transferred or rejected and if this fact may be false then its full responsibility will be mine Syed Mohammad and one photo copy of which power of attorney you have been handed over.”   

5.      Learned counsel for the appellants argued that if only the photocopy of general power of attorney was provided to the purchasers who are the complainants in the present case, how could they have filed the original general power of attorney with the bank.  Obviously the general power of attorney will be held by the person in whose favour that was executed. 

6.      It was further agued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the State Commission has not mentioned any amount of loan which is to be granted to the complainants if the bank fails to provide the certified copy of the general power of attorney.  The order of the State Commission is vague in this respect as it directs the bank to provide loan as per the requirement of the complainants.  Bank cannot sanction loan to any person without ascertaining credit worthiness of that person. 

7.      On the basis of the above arguments, learned counsel finally stated that the bank is ready to provide the certified copy of the relinquishment deed dated 13.4.1970 to the complainants.  The bank does not have the original or photocopy of the general power of attorney issued by Hanif Mohd. in favour of Sayed Mohd. and therefore, the same cannot be provided to the complainants.  The order of the State Commission that in case of default, the loan requirement of the complainants be met by the bank is totally illegal and uncalled for in the circumstances of the case.  It was, therefore, requested to allow the appeal and set aside the order of the State Commission.  

8.      On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents/complainants stated that it is wrong to say that original general power of attorney was not provided to the bank by the complainants. In the Search Report dated 22.08.2005 by the Advocate of the bank, the following is mentioned:-

9.      From the above, it is clear that this column is in respect of the original documents. The concerned Advocate then has given a Certificate dated 22.08.2005 which clearly mentioned these two documents at Sr. Nos.2 & 3 as follows:-

“Details of Documents to be deposited to create equitable mortgage in UCO Bank

2.     Photocopy Relinquish Deed executed by Isak Mohd. S/o Late Mohd. Akbar, Najiran w/o Modh. Najir, Sarifan w/o Vasir Mohd. Smt. Gulab w/o Murad Ali in favour of Hasan Mohd. Isak Mohd. S/o Late Mohd. Akbar Dt. 13.04.1970 (registered)

3.     Original General Power of Attorney executed by Hanif Mohd. & Others in favour of Sayad Mohd. S/o Hasan Mohd.”

10.    To support the claim of the complainants, learned counsel further referred to letter issued by the concerned Branch Manager dated 27.01.2010 wherein these two documents are again mentioned as follows:-

“2.   Photocopy Relinquish Deed executed by Isak Mohd. S/o Late Mohd. Akbar, Najiran w/o Modh. Najir, Sarifan w/o Vasir Mohd. Smt. Gulab w/o Murad Ali in favour of Hasan Mohd. Isak Mohd. S/o Late Mohd. Akbar Dt. 13.04.1970 (registered)

               3.   Original General Power of Attorney executed by Hanif Mohd. & Others in favour of Sayad Mohd. S/o Hasan Mohd.”

11.    The learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that the above mentioned references clearly prove that the original general power of attorney was submitted to the bank and it was properly examined by the bank and was acknowledged by the Branch Manager as well.  However, later on, Branch Manager vide its letter dated 12.11.2010 informed that the demanded documents were not available in their record.  It was stated by the learned counsel that how could the documents vanish from the bank between period 27.01.2010 to 12.11.2010. Clearly there is a deficiency in service on the part of the bank and therefore, as the bank has lost the original documents therefore, the order of the State Commission has been passed in right earnest and needs to be upheld.

12.    I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the material on record.  The question relating to photocopy of the relinquishment deed dated 13.04.1970 stands resolved.  The bank is ready to provide the certified copy of the relinquishment deed dated 13.04.1970, which is a registered document. From the search report and other documents, it is quite clear that the bank has taken into consideration the original general power of attorney filed by the complainants and certificate of the Advocate has been issued after examining the same.  There is some merit in the argument of the appellant bank that sale deed mentioned that photocopy of the general power of attorney was supplied by the GPA holder to the purchaser and therefore, it is questionable how the complainants could file the general power of attorney, which was in the possession of the GPA holder.  However, importance is to be given to a direct evidence available on the record in the form of the certificate of the Advocate filing such report and then also the issuance of the list of documents by the Branch Manager on 27.1.2010 wherein the general power of attorney is clearly mentioned. Therefore, I am of the opinion, the bank is responsible for misplacing the original power of attorney filed by the complainants. 

13.    Now, the question crops up as to what should be the compensation to the complainants by the bank for misplacing the original general power of attorney filed by the complainants. The State Commission has ordered that if the bank is not able to provide certified copy of the general power of attorney issued by Hanif Mohd., then the bank will sanction the loan to the complainants as per their requirement. No consumer forum has right to direct financial institution to provide loan to a particular party as this is the function of the concerned financial institution to examine the proposal and then to sanction or not to sanction the loan after assessment of credit worthiness of the concerned applicant.  As the question of re-payment of loan is involved, and the State Commission would not have had any means to ensure the repayment of loan by the complainants, I am of the considered opinion that the order of the State Commission directing for sanctioning the loan to the requirement of the complainants is not legally tenable.  The State Commission should have allowed some compensation to the complainants for loss of general power of attorney issued by Hanif Mohd. and filed by the complainants with the bank.

14.    Based on the above discussion, it is brought out that the order of the State Commission in respect of directing the opposite parties/appellants herein to sanction loan to the complainants as per the requirement is liable to be set aside, however, the appellants would be liable to pay compensation for loss of general power of attorney to the complainants.  It is to be considered that the sale deed in favour of the complainants has already been executed by GPA holder Sayad Mohd., therefore, the complainants have already extracted the benefit from this general power of attorney and this has mainly a historical legal value qua the complainants. The general power of attorney issued by Hanif Mohd. seems to be unregistered document, which has already served its purpose in executing the sale deed in favour of the complainants.  The sale deed is available and there is no dispute regarding this sale deed in the present case between the bank and the complainants.  Obviously, this is not a title deed of a property and therefore, the compensation payable to the complainants will have to be accordingly assessed.  In the facts and circumstances of the case, in my view, the ends of justice would meet if a compensation of Rs.75,000/- is paid by the appellants to the complainants.

15.    Based on the above discussion, the appeal filed by the appellants is partly allowed and the order dated 10.12.2013 of the State Commission in respect of providing certified copy of the general power of attorney executed by Hanif Mohd. and in default providing loan to the complainants as per their requirement is set aside.  The appellants are directed as under:-

(i)      To provide the certified copy of the relinquishment deed dated 13.4.1970 to the complainants within a period of 45 days.

(ii)      The appellants shall pay a compensation of Rs.75,000/- (rupees seventy five thousand only) to the complainants within a period of 45 days from the date of this order, failing which, an interest @9% p.a. shall be payable by the appellant bank to the complainants.

(iii)     The appellants shall also pay cost of Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand only) to the complainants as ordered by the State Commission.

16.    No order as to costs for this appeal.