ORDER

30.04.2022

Sh. RAJESH, MEMBER.

1. Present complaint has been filed by complainant seeking a direction to the opposite party to penalize as a deterrent for misguiding general public, to pay Rs. 22,000/- which was short paid to complainant, Rs. 4,800/- refund of charges for valuation of property and compensation amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- for harassing complainant.
2. It is stated that complainant approached OP for a personal loan and he was informed following conditions for taking a personal loan

1. Rate of interest will be charges as per RBI norms.
2. Property of complainant shall be valued.
3. Loan shall be given by OP as per valuation of property of complainant.
4. Documents of property shall be kept by OP.
5. After disbursement of loan all these charges shall be refunded to complainant.  

3. It is stated that on 02.09.2016 complainant handed over a cheque of Rs. 4,800/- to OP for charges against valuation property. OP informed complainant that loan will be passed in fifteen days. However bank made complainant to run here and there for two months. 
4. It is stated that OP took all papers of property from complainant and also got signed loan agreement on 29.10.2016 from complainant.
5. It is stated that after 08.11.2016 Reserve Bank of India ceased the circulation of old currency notes of 500/- and 1,000/- denominations. Therefore on 15.11.2016 complainant informed OP not to disburse loan in his bank account as the money transaction was not being carried out properly. Still on 21.11.2016 OP transferred a sum of Rs. 5,78,689/- in the bank a/c of complainant on account of loan disbursement.
6. It is stated that complainant objected to transfer of loan amount in his bank account by OP and asked for refund of two months and asked for an explanation for deficit payment of Rs. 22,000/-.
7. It is stated that manager of OP informed that file charge is 1% and rest of the money has been used for insurance. Complainant objected to have insured his property without his permission as the OP had mortgazed the property of complainant therefore couldn’t get it insured. Complainant also objected to have not refunded Rs. 4,800/- on account of charges for valuation of property.
8. It is stated that Branch Manager of OP Bank assured the complainant that he will do needful in the matter. But even after passing of two months he did nothing. Thereafter OP started harassing complainant and OP withdrew first installment within 15 days from the bank account of complainant, thereafter, started harassing complainant for second instalment. It is stated despite there being more than one lakh rupees in the bank account of complainant   the OP demanded instalment from the complainant on the ground that there is some issue in the ECS system.
9. It is stated that complainant has four grievances against OP as follows:-

1. OP made complainant to run from pillar to post for two months.
2. OP disbursed the loan after two months without asking complainant.
3. When loan was disbursed bank was not functioning properly due to demonetization.
4. OP paid Rs. 22,000/- less and also charged Rs. 4,800/- against valuation of property.

10. Hence the complainant has preferred present complaint seeking abovementioned reliefs.
11. Notice was issued to Opposite Parties who appeared and filed their detailed Written Statement denying allegations made in the complaint and seeking dismissal of the present complaint.
12. It is stated that the present dispute does not fall within the meaning of Consumer therefore the present complaint is liable to be rejected on this ground.
13. It is stated that complaint filed by the complainant against OP is without cause of action no cause of action ever arose to file the present complaint and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
14. It is stated that complainant approached the respondent company for availing personal loan against property as financial assistance and applied for the same by submitting duly filed application form on 20.08.2016. Upon verification of the documents submitted by the complainant and assuring its credential the respondent company agreed to sanction a loan of Rs. 6,00,000/- only to the complainant. The terms and conditions for the grant of personal loan against property facility were agreed upon the loan documents vide loan agreement No. 1951168 dated 04.11.2016 in the account of complainant through RTGS mode. It is further stated that welcome letter dated 02.12.2016 was also sent to the complainant by OP with regard to loan amount and actual disbursed amount as per agreed terms and conditions between the parties. It was further agreed by complainant to replay the said loan amount along with interests @ 18.50% p.a. and other charges in 60 equal installments of Rs. 15,400/-.
15. It is stated that to the knowledge of complainant the present complaint is false frivolous and vexatious and liable to be dismissed under section 26 of the Act and OP is entitled to special and compensatory costs.
16. On merits all the allegations are denied and contents of preliminary objections are reiterated. It is reiterated that present complaint does not pertain to a consumer dispute hence same is liable to be rejected.
17. It is stated that the complainant was intimated with regard to the rate fo interest levied on the loan amount would be as per rules and regulations of RBI. It was further initiated that for security of loan, paper of property owned by the complainant will have to surrendered with the OP. It was further intimated to the complainant that at first property against which the complainant wants to take the loan will have to get valued at hey cost of the complainant and that cost will be nonrefundable. Therefore it is wrong and denied the statement of complainant that the cost of valuations of property if paid by the complainant would be refunded after sanctioning of loan.
18. It is further wrong and denied that the OP had assured that the loan would be sanctioned within 15 days but the OP caused the complainant to move around the company for next two months. It is stated that the complainant was specifically intimated that it would take some time for sanctioning the loan as the as there are some procedure required to be fulfilled before sanctioning and disbursing the loan and it will take some time.
19. It is further stated that it is wrong and denied the statement of the complainant that the during the month of November 2016 visited the office of the respondent company and asked not to disburse the loan in his account as the circulation of money got disturbed due to demonetization. It is not denied that the loan amount of Rs. 6 Lakh was sanctioned in favour of the complainant and an amount of Rs. 5,78,689/-was disbursed in the account of complainant on 21.11.2016 after deducting the charges mentioned in the welcome letter dated 02.12.2016. It is stated that processing fees for sanctioning of loan is also born by the complainant which he didn’t pay before applying for the same therefore the aforesaid processing fees was charged from the loan account.
20. It is further stated that the delay of two months in sanctioning of the loan, disbursing the loan amount without asking from the complainant when amount was disbursed in his account the bank was not working properly due to crowed and deductions of Rs. 22,000/- from the loan amount and also taking amount of Rs. 4,800/- for the purpose of getting the property valued are not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is stated that all the four grievances mentioned in the complaint have already been answered in the previous paras.
21. It is further stated that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP while giving proper services to the complainant. It is further submitted that each and every conditions with regard to present loan agreement was properly communicated to the complainant and having understood the terms and conditions of the agreement the complainant signed and executed the agreement and accordingly loan was sanctioned and disbursed to complainant.   
22. Both parties have led their respective evidence by way of affidavit and also filed brief synopsis of their written arguments.
23. We have perused the record available before us and arguments of parties were heard and judgment was reserved.
24. The main issue which arises for consideration in the present complaint is whether OP has committed deficiency in service in processing, sanctioning and disbursing the loan of the complainant within the definition of Consumer Protection Act 1986.
25. As per the averments made in the present complaint and record available before us, the complainant has alleged that OP made complainant to run from pillar to post for two months.

1. OP disbursed the loan after two months without asking complainant.

5. When loan was disbursed bank was not functioning properly due to demonetization.
6. OP paid Rs. 22,000/- less and also charged Rs. 4,800/- against valuation of property.

Therefore, OP is liable for deficiency in services.

26. In order to prove the allegations made by the complainant the complainant has produced no documentary evidence which could establish the guilt of the OP i.e. loan was disbursed to complainant without asking by complainant, how complainant was effected if the bank was not functioning while disbursing the loan,    OP paid Rs. 22,000/- less and also charged Rs. 4,800/- against valuation of property.
27. In fact some allegations of the complainant appears to be self contradictory i.e. OP bank disbursed the loan amount without asking from complainant when complainant admittedly has himself applied for the loan. It is not the case of the complainant that complainant withdrew his offer before OP accepted the same. No documentary proof has been filed by complainant even if offer of loan was ever withdrawn by complainant.
28. Further that no explanation has been submitted by complainant how there was a shortfall of Rs. 22,000/- in the loan disbursed amount. Complainant has failed to prove the actual amount of disbursement of loan. In the absence of any documentary evidence the contention of the complainant can’t be accepted by this Commission.  
29. Complainant has also failed to prove by adducing any documentary evidence that OP informed complainant that loan will be passed in fifteen days.
30. The allegations of the complainant that he was wrongly charged Rs. 4,800/- by OP on account of valuation of property  is also not sustainable as the complainant himself paid Rs. 4,800/- at the time of applying for loan on account of valuation of property . Therefore complainant is estopped in law to raise this plea. 
31. In the present complaint the complainant has failed to establish any cause of action against OP which may give rise to a deficiency in services as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
32. In view of above discussions, we are of the considered opinion that since the complainant failed to prima facie establish deficiency in services against the OP, therefore, present complaint is dismissed.
33. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving the application from the parties in the registry.

Order be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in. File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in open Commission on 30.04.2022.

SANJAY KUMAR                 NIPUR  CHANDNA                     RAJESH

PRESIDENT                            MEMBER                             MEMBER