By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:
The complaint filed against the Opposite Party for the non issuance of the loan to the Complainant.
2. The complaint in brief is as follows:- The Complainant availed a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from the Opposite Party termed as house loan. The repayment of this loan is to be in a long term period and it was to be in instalments in monthly basis. The repayment of loan was not prompt and became default. The dispute and differences between Complainant Opposite Party in the non repayment of the loan amount was later settled in an Adalath. The direction given to the Complainant in an Adalath was to repay the loan instalments agreed accordingly to the settled norms in adalath and the Complainant remitted Rs.27,000/- towards the instalments due. The subsequent instalments could not be remitted and the reason for the non payment of the instalments was due to the exorbitant interest demanded by the Complainant.
3. In this circumstances the Complainant also approached the Opposite Party for an industrial loan for the small scale industry run by the Complainant named 'New Satcon Industries' where in the iron materials and roof construction materials were produced. A project report was given to the Opposite Party as directed by the Senior Manager of State Bank of Tranvancore and District Industries Centre Muttil. There was an assurance from the Opposite Party in this regard that Rs.4,00,000/- would be sanctioned to the Complainant for the functioning of the industry. The Complainant also remitted substantial amount towards the instalments due of the house loan. The Opposite Party was not ready to adhere to the promises and the loan was not sanctioned. Relying earlier assurance of the Opposite Party the Complainant purchased materials worth of Rs.1,07,737/- for the running of the industry and the withdrawal from the promises of the Opposite Party caused heavy loss and hardships. The house loan arrears were closed by the Complainant considering the promises of the Opposite Party worthy enough and materials purchased for the running of industry became a waste and loss. There may be an order directing the Opposite Party to give Rs.1,07,737/- for the running of the industry along with cost and compensation of Rs.25,000/-.
4. The Opposite Party filed version in short it is as follows:- The complaint itself is not maintainable Rs.2,00,000/- as house loan was given to the Complainant on deposit of title deed of land property in the extend to 22 cents. The Complainant's husband is the guarantor and co-obligant to the loan. In addition to the house loan, the Complainant was given Rs.1,40,000/- as composite loan. On 08.06.2006 to the concern M/s Satcon Puliyarmala, the 2nd loan was issued later it was classified as non performing assets and steps were taken under surface act and notice under section 32 of surface act was sent to the Complainant on 31.08.2009. The further action against the Opposite Party was withheld on request and remittance of some instalments. The Complainant's husband contacted the Opposite Party for an additional loan to M/S Satcon but there was no assurance from the Opposite Party for the sanction of the further loan and it was also informed to the husband of the complainant. The application for the further loan can be considered if the arrears are cleared. The application forwarded through the District Industries Centre for the loan was returned on the ground that the Complainant is a defaulter of the house loan and the composite loan amount already availed became due and her husband was not ready to sign loan revival letter. The suit against the Complainant in Sub Court Sulthan Bathery No. OS 16/2011 on 01.01.2011 it is also pending. The relief prayed for are not maintainable. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. The complaint is to be dismissed with cost.
5. The points in consideration are:-
Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party in the loan transaction?
Relief and cost.
6. Point No.1 and 2:- The evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit of the Complainant's husband and Opposite Party Exts. A1 to A14 are the documents. The oral testimony of the Complainant's agent and the Opposite Party are also considered in this case.
7. The allegation of the Complainant is in respect of the non sanctioning of loan to the industry run by them. The husband of the Complainant is examined as PW1 it is admitted that the loan was sanctioned by the Opposite Party in two categories one is house loan and other for industrial purpose. It is admitted that the repayment of the loan amount was not done in time and the Complainant became a defaulter. The complainant also availed a loan from Indian Overseas Bank and the property kept in security there was auctioned and sold by that bank under surface act and that too is admitted by the Complainant's husband.The Complainant's claim is that assurance was given by the Opposite Party that they would sanction Rs.1,70,000/- to the concern of the complainant the 'Satcon'. Nothing is brought out in evidence to establish the contention of the Complainant that the Opposite Party assured further loan to the Complainant. Rs.1,70,000/- was already given by the Opposite Party as composite loan. The Opposite Parties are having the contention that the Complainant and her husband who is examined as an agent are defaulters and the repayment of the loan were not prompt. The steps were taken by the Opposite Party against the Complainant to recover the non performing asset of the loan amount due from the Complainant. Ext.A4 is the Project Report produced by the complainant that does not show that there was assurance by the Opposite Party to sanction the loan. The non sanction of the loan to the customer who is considered to be defaulter of the earlier loan cannot be considered a deficient in service and the points are found accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed no order as to cost.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 29th July 2011.
Date of filing:04.02.2011.
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
A P P E N D I X
Witness for the Complainant:
PW1. P. Madhavan Rtd. Teacher.
Witness for the Opposite Party:
OPW1. Abinash Panigrahi Dy. Manager, SBT, Kalpetta.
Exhibit for the Complainant:
A1. Copy of Lawyer Notice. dt:20.12.2010.
A2. Copy of Lawyer Notice.
A3. Copy of Letter. dt:21.12.2010.
A4. Project Report.
A5. Copy of Plan of Store & Office of New Satcon Industries Ind No.111/498
A6. Copy of Site Plan.
A7. Voucher. dt:16.11.2010.
A8. Retail Invoice. dt:30.04.2011.
A9. Receipt. dt:15.11.2010.
A10. Voucher. dt:01.11.2010.
A11. Power of Attorney.
A12. Pay in slip. dt:30.06.2011.
A13 series. Pay in slip. dt:06.08.2010.
A14. Copy of Statement of Account.
Exhibit for the Opposite Party:
Nil.
