Date of filing : 27-03-2012
Date of order : 24-03-2015
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.82/2012
Dated this, the 24th day of March 2015
PRESENT:
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : PRESIDENT
SMT.K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL : MEMBER
Rajagopalan.A, Oni, Poodamkallu, : Complainant
Rajapuram.Po.Kasaragod.Dt. 671532.
(Adv.Shajid Kammadam, Kasaragod)
1 Manager, Federal Bank, Rajapuram Branch, : Opposite parties
Po.Rajapuram., Kasaragod.Dt.
(Adv.K.M.Sreedharan, Hosdurg)
2District Industries Centre (DIC)
Kasaragod.
(In Person)
O R D E R
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL, MEMBER
The brief case of the complainant is that he had approached the Federal Bank, Rajapuram branch for a loan under the self employment scheme for educated unemployed youth in the month of October 2011. The scheme aims to give assistance to young educated entrepreneurs preferably technically qualified and skilled youth to set up in micro enterprises. But the opposite parties several time sent back the complainant by stating one or other reason and the opposite party asked for security for the loan and retained the title deeds of the property of the mother of this complainant with the bank. The application for the loan was sent to the Zonal office at Kozhikode only after the expiry period of the scheme and hence the loan application was not sanctioned for the complainant herein. He further averred that on the basis of the assurance for the opposite party bank to sanction loans to the complainant, he had undergone training and processed all the necessary documents and forwarded the same to the opposite party bank. Complainant suffered financial loss or mental pain and agony due to the deficiency of service from opposite party and hence complaint filed for.
2. Opposite party No.1 bank appeared and filed version denying deficiency in service and contended that there is no consumer dispute involved in this case, since there were some mistakes and omission in some of the documents and in the application submitted by the complainant, the same was returned to the complainant to be resubmitted after curing the defects. The documents and applications submitted by the complainant were not meeting the procedural requirements were clearly communicated to the complainant by the opposite party and the complainant collected the paper from the bank promising to rectify the mistake and resubmit it. The opposite party was ready and willing to provide loan facility to the complainant under the scheme within time. The opposite party never refused the loan to the complainant and it was solely due to the failure on the part of the complainant to resubmit the loan application after curing the defects that the loan could not be granted to him by the opposite party.
3. Based on the pleadings and contentions of both the parties, the following points arise for consideration.
1 Whether there is any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the
opposite parties?
2 As to relief and costs?
4. Evidence in this case consists of the chief and proof affidavit of this complainant and Exts A1 to A7 were marked on his part and chief and proof affidavit filed by the opposite party No.1 and Exts B1 to B7 were marked from his side.. Heard the counsels for both parties in detail.
5. Point.No.1. The scheme involved in the case is a self employment scheme for educated youths intended to give financial assistance up to 5 lakhs to young educated entrepreneurs preferably technically qualified skilled youth to set up new micro enterprises since unemployment of the youths is a major stumbling block to growing social disequitibria leading to economic poverty. In this case, the PW1 has approached opposite party bank for a loan under the self employment scheme. The Ist opposite party has vehemently contented that the application submitted by the complainant was returned to him to be resubmitted after curing the defects. Since the application were not meeting the procedural requirements as contemplated by the scheme and the opposite party bank was ready and willing to provide loan facility to the complainant under the above mentioned scheme. The Manager of Ist opposite party Mr.Chandran.P.P. who is the Senior Manager is examined as DW1. In his evidence he had admitted that opposite party bank is a member of lead bank and in the Board meeting of Lead Bank used to give proper guidelines to the members about the scheme introduced by the Government and its modalities. Eventhough the DW1 is the Manager of Ist opposite party Bank at the relevant period does not even know the name of the scheme and when it was introduced. As per the scheme, application has to be submitted to the Assistant District Industrial officer and field verification as regards the technical feasibility and communication viability, he submits the same to General Manager, District Industrial Department. After making a further scrutiny the same will placed before District Level Task force for decision. In the Task Force, the Manager, lead bank will be a member. The approved projects are then forwarded by General Manager, District Industries Centre to the recommended financial institution for sanctioning loan. On the basis of Ext.A6 which is the covering letter issued by the G.M to the opposite party such a process has been already done in this case. Another crucial document in this case, is Ext.A7 which is the Federal Bank’s guidelines on Fair Practices Code for lenders. As per Ext.A7 the process fee should be refunded in case of non acceptance of application. Moreover, as per Ext.A7 the financial institutions should verify the loan application within a reasonable period of time. If additional details/ documents are required, they should intimate the borrowers immediately. In this case any of the above requirements were done by Ist opposite party. Apart from this the complainant had undergone the training conducted by District Industries Centre, Kasaragod. The District Industries Centre recommended for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/ to PW1 out of which 70% has to be given by the bank and 20% will be the Government subsidy and 10% has to be raised by the complainant. As per Ext.B1 Opposite party No.2 stated that an amount of Rs.2,80,000/- has to be sanctioned to the complainant. On perusal of Ext.B1, it is crystal clear that the opposite party was so negligently handled the entire process and instead of Rs.2,70,000/- he had proposed to sanction, Rs. 2,80,000/- to the complainant having the 90% of 3 lakhs.
6. In the present case, PW1 acted to his detriment to avail loan on the promise made by the Bank. Subsequently bank refused to perform the service which it had undertaken to perform, thereby resulting in fault in the performances of the service. There was inordinate delay of 187 days in processing the loan application. By keeping in mind that the argument put forwarded by the learned counsel for the opposite party that the bank is not an agent of DIC and opposite parties has got ample authority to verify the documents and to decide whether to sanction a loan or to reject it but it should be within a reasonable period. The opposite party No.1 herein failed to give a proper explanation for delay of 187 days and moreover, Ext.B7 ought to have issued much, earlier i.e. stage of the process of loan. Opposite parties ought to have verified the documents in time and moreover according to opposite party No.1 they were ready and willing to sanction the loan if the complainant resubmit his application for loan within prescribed time. It means that the opposite party himself agrees that PW1 is eligible for loan, but since the delay in issuing Ext.B7 was occurred, by the time the scheme was stopped by the government. By considering all these aspects the service which the opposite party No.1 undertakes to perform suffered from deficiency and here the complainant is entitled a relief for his sufferings. There is no latches or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.2.
In the result, the complaint is allowed and the opposite party No.1 is directed to pay an amount of Rs.30,000/- as compensation with a cost of Rs.5000/- to the complainant. Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1.6-12-2011 Letter issued by Federal Bank to Rajagopalan.A
A2. Dt. 29-12-2012 Certificate issued by DIC , Kasaragod to complainant
A3.8-3-2012 letter sent by Federal Bank Branch Rajapuram to Complainant.
A4. Lease Agreement A5. Pass book of complainant
A6.27-10-2011 Letter Sent by General Manager, DIC, Kasaragod to Branch Manager Federal Bank
A7. 5-5-2003 Guidelines on Fair Practices Code for Lenders
B1.20-12-2011 letter sent by Opposite party to Chief Manager, Credit Hub
B2.22-12-2011 Letter sent by Federal Bank to Senior Manager Branch Rajapuram.
B3. 28-12-2011 Letter sent by Opposite party to Chief Manager Credit Hub
B4. 18-1-2012 letter sent OP to complainant.
B5.29-2-12 letter sent by the complainant to credit control Department
B6.5-3-12 letter received by the opposite party from the credit Hub.
B7.8-3-12 letter sent by the SME hub Kiozhikode to the OP.
DW1. Chandran.P.P.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/
