Mr.P.N. Kashalkar – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:
(1) This is an old matter pending in this Commission since 2003. This appeal has been field by the original Complainant whose complaint was dismissed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nashik on 01.07.2011. Since it was found that matter was not admitted the matter was placed before this bench on 04.07.2011. On 04.07.2011 Mr.Alok Moruskar, for the Appellant was present. On his request matter was adjourned to 05.07.2011. On 05.07.2011 he was present and Respondent was absent. We had directed to issue notice to the Respondent by R.P.A.D at the costs of the Appellant. Office has put endorsement that the Appellant has not come with required papers and hence, notice was not sent. Again on 1st August, 2011 Appellant’s Advocate was present and sought time to issue notice to the Complainant. Subject to costs of `500/- to be deposited in legal aid fund of this Commission the adjournment was granted and Appellant was permitted to issue notice to the Respondent afresh. Notice was made returnable today i.e. 22.09.2011. Today neither the Appellant and his Advocate are present nor notice has been issued to the Respondent. Hence, we have decided to proceed with the appeal.
(2) According to Appellant he had approached Malegaon Merchant Cooperative Bank for obtaining loan of `50,000/-. He was already existing member of the Bank. The Bank was ready to sanction loan provided he executes mortgage deed in favour of the Bank. Appellant’s contention in District Forum was that he had prepared mortgage deed and he had also given copy of 7/12 extract in which endorsement of mortgage was mentioned. He also prepared valuation report and approached the Bank. Bank had refused to sanction loan on the ground that his son had already taken loan of `2,50,000/- which was not paid by his son. The Complainant not being satisfied with the reason given by the Bank for refusal to sanction loan filed consumer complaint and claimed `3,000/- for mental agony and also claimed `10,000/- towards legal proceeding.
(3) Opponent Nos.1 to 3 appeared and contested the complaint. According to Opponent Nos.1 to 3 sanction of the loan is as per the Bank’s rules and regulations and it was found that Complainant had not refunded amount to `6,000/- for the last 13 years and he was shown as defaulter, likewise his own son till 31.08.2000 had not refunded the loan of `2,50,000/-. Therefore, on these two counts the Bank had refused to sanction the loan. The Bank pleaded that they were within their right to refuse to sanction loan. So, the complaint be dismissed with costs.
(4) On perusal of documents on record, the District Forum held that the Bank was legally right in non-disbursement of loan which it had agreed to sanction to the Complainant. Since the Complainant was defaulter for the amount of `6,000/- since last 13 years and his own son had taken the loan of `2,50,000/- which was unpaid on the date when Complainant had asked for loan of `50,000/-. Bank refused to disburse the loan. The Bank is a financial institution and it has to transact the business judiciously. Bank is expert in financial field, since Bank found that Complainant and his son had not repaid the loan, Bank has rightly refused to sanction the loan. Therefore, order passed by the District Forum is just and proper and hence, we pass the following order:
O R D E R
(i) Appeal stands dismissed since devoid of any substance.
(ii) No order as to costs.
(iii) Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced on 22nd September, 2011.
