Per - Hon'ble Mr. P. N. Kashalkar, Presiding Judicial Member
Heard the Appellant/original Complainant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Complainant’ for the sake of brevity) in person and Adv. Ashwin Modi instructed by Adv. S. P. Bajaj on behalf of the Respondent/original Opponent, namely – Indian Overseas Bank (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Bank’ for the sake of brevity)
[2] The Complainant has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 23/9/2010 as regards dismissal of his Consumer Complaint No.44 of 2010, Mr. Jaikumar Shankarrao Jadhav Vs. Indian Overseas Bank, by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nashik (hereinafter referred to as ‘the District Forum’ for the sake of brevity). The Complainant has filed a consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Bank. Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of his consumer complaint, the Complainant has filed this appeal. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in brief, may be summarized as under:-
[3] The Complainant at approached the Bank, having its branch office at Dwarka Circle, Chandori, Taluka – Nifad, District – Nashik. The Complainant had been sanctioned Cash Credit Facility for an amount of `1,00,000/- in terms of Cash Credit Account No.1956. The Complainant needed enhanced Cash Credit limit. Hence, the Complainant was told by the Bank to mortgage his flat. Accordingly, the Complainant had registered a mortgage deed in respect of his flat in favour of the Bank through Adv. N. G. Gaikwad. According to the Complainant, the flat was valued at `5,80,000/- as per the report of the valuer, namely – Mr. Thite. However, it is the grievance of the Complainant that even after registration of mortgage deed in respect of his flat in favour of the Bank, his Cash Credit limit was not enhanced and a cheque issued by the Complainant for an amount of `11,000/- on the Cash Credit Facility Account No.1956 was dishonoured on 4/11/2009 by the Bank. Therefore, after sending a notice through his advocate, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Bank. The Complainant sought certain relief against the Bank. Bank filed its written version and contested the complaint. Bank denied that it granted enhanced cash credit facility to the Complainant. According to the Bank, the Complainant had already taken two separate loans from two co-operative banks. The Complainant’s prayer for enhanced Cash Credit facility was considered in the light of documents he had submitted and the Bank was of the view that the Complainant could not be granted enhanced Cash Credit facility and, therefore, the Complainant’s request for enhanced Cash Credit facility was turned down. According to the Bank, behind its back, through some other advocate than the Bank’s authorized advocate, Appellant got executed mortgage deed and registered it in office of the Sub-Registrar at Nashik. However, according to the Bank, said mortgage deed is of no use because it was not bearing signature and seal of the Bank. Bank pleaded that mortgage deed must be signed by the mortgagor as well as by the mortgagee. Here, in this case, mortgagor signed the mortgage deed, which was registered but, the Bank had not put its signature and seal on the mortgage deed, as the mortgagee and, therefore, said mortgage deed is of no use to support the case of the Complainant. Bank pleaded that the Complainant was given letter after letter but, the Complainant had not made compliance of the Bank’s letter dated 30/11/2009 and since the Complainant had failed to submit appropriate documents, as asked for by the Bank, the Bank had not sanctioned enhanced cash credit facility to the Complainant and, therefore, the Bank was within its rights to dishonour the cheque when it was presented on finding that the cash credit facility of the Complainant had already attained maximum limit available to the Complainant. Bank, therefore, pleaded that there was no deficiency in service on its part and as such, it prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.
[4] The District Forum, on considering the rival claims, rival documents and affidavits filed before it was pleased to hold that there was no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the Bank. Complainant had not submitted requisite papers, as asked for by the Bank, and, therefore, the District Forum was pleased to dismiss the complaint since deficiency in service on the part of the Bank was not proved at all. Aggrieved by this dismissal order, the Complainant filed this appeal.
[5] We are finding that there is virtually no substance in the present appeal filed by the Complainant. The impugned order of dismissal of consumer complaint passed by the District Forum is just and proper. It is sustainable in law. It must be borne in mind that when any customer is asking for enhanced facility of cash credit, he has to make compliance of certain things as directed by the bank. In the instant case, the Complainant has failed to make requisite compliance as per the letters sent by the Bank and the Complainant is banking upon the mortgage deed registered by him in favour of the Bank behind the back of the Bank. Bank is not a signatory to the mortgage deed and the mortgage deed was got executed and registered by the Complainant in the Sub-Registrar’s office at Nashik unilaterally by the Complainant. Such a document is of no use since it is not bearing signature and seal of the Bank. Under the circumstances, there was no obligation on the part of the Bank to sanction enhanced cash credit facility as prayed for by the Complainant. Since there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Bank, we are finding no substance in the present appeal preferred by the Complainant.
Hence, we pass the following order:-
ORDER
Appeal stands dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced and dictated on 31st January, 2012
