BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

C.C.No: 126/2013     Filed on 25.03.2013

ORDER DATED: 28.02.2018

Complainant:

(By Adv. Kumari Jaya K.)

Opposite parties:

This C.C having been heard on 24.01.2018, the Forum on 28.02.2018  delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR, MEMBER:

Case of the complainant is as follows.  The complainant has applied for a loan facility of Rs.2,00,000/- from the opposite parties.  As per the opposite parties’ direction the complainant has given to them his photographs, copies of voter’s ID card, driving license, bank pass book, cheque leaf and land tax receipts along with photograph of his wife and a copy of her voter’s ID card.  Opposite parties have intimated to the complainant that loan is sanctioned and complainant was directed to appear before them on 22.12.2011 to complete the formalities and accordingly (complainant came before opposite party’s on 22.12.2011) and a hypothecation agreement was also executed by complainant on the same day.  On that day the opposite parties also obtained a cheque leaf from the complainant to complete the formalities.  The opposite parties also received a sum of Rs.4050/- from complainant towards documentation charges, service charges etc. for availing loan of Rs.2,00,000/- and complainant was directed to give the amount immediately.  Complainant after entering into the contract and also after receipt of the said amount, cheque leaf etc. the opposite party lagged behind in disbursing the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to complainant and despite his frequent enquiries through telephone as well as in person the opposite party never cared to fulfill their commitment and delayed the disbursement of the loan.  Complainant was prompted to apply for the facility by opposite party, in continuation of the loan complainant had availed of from the opposite party earlier, which complainant had repaid in full.  Complainant was forced to believe the opposite party and apply for the facility on the sole reason that the opposite party had promised that the loan will be released without any delay and also since that complainant needed the money to utilise for meeting the hospital expenses of complainant’s aged father-in-law who was undergoing treatment at the Cosmopolitan Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram.  The inhuman attitude of the opposite parties in not disbursing the amount, the complainant was forced to borrow Rs.2,00,000/- on 36% of interest per month and thereby he lost a sizable sum also.  The above act of the opposite party, complainant also put to serve stress and strain since; he could not make available the money required by the hospital authorities for the medical treatment.  The above act of the opposite party in not disbursing the loan amount after entering into the contract and also after receiving consideration and the required documents amounts to unfair trade practice and grave efficiency in services and hence the opposite parties are liable to be dealt with in accordance with law.  Due to the said illegal act of the opposite parties complainant suffered mental stress and strain for which the opposite parties are liable to compensate.

Opposite parties filed version contenting as follows.  The complainant is not coming under the definition of “consumer” as per the Consumer Protection Act.  The complainant had submitted an application for vehicle loan, but that was not sanctioned as the complainant was failed to produce the records showing repayment credentials.  So, the loan application was rejected and communicated to the complainant.  No agreement was entered into between the complainant and opposite party.  Hence the opposite party had not entered into relationship with the complainant required to render service to the complainant and the complainant had not perfected to the status of “consumer” as defined in the CP Act.  There is no consumer relationship with the opposite party bank.  No banking service was required to render and no deficiency of service occurred as alleged.  Hence the complaint is not maintainable.  The maintainability of the complaint may be heard as a preliminary issue and the complaint may be dismissed as not maintainable.   It is denied that as per the direction of the opposite party bank complainant has given his photographs, copies of voter’s ID cards, driving license, bank pass book, cheque leaf and land tax receipts along with photograph of his wife and copy of voter’s ID card.  It is submitted that opposite party bank has never collected any cheque or land tax receipt from the complainant.  Complainant has given the photocopies of his ID proof along with the application.  It is denied that opposite party bank has intimated to the complainant that loan has sanctioned and has directed the complainant to appear before the bank on 22.12.2011 for completing the formalities and accordingly a hypothecation agreement was also executed between the complainant and opposite party bank on the same day.  It is submitted that the complainant never executed any hypothecation agreement between opposite party bank as alleged in the complaint.  It is also denied that opposite party bank has also obtained a cheque leaf from the complainant.  It is true that the complainant has paid an amount of Rs.4,050/- towards documentation charges, service charges etc.  It is submitted that the complainant had approached the bank during last week of December 2011 seeking a vehicle loan for purchase of a commercial vehicle and made an application for the same.  The executives of the bank collected application for loan and also collected the copies of the address proof and identity proof.  Even at the time of submission of the application, the complainant was duly informed that the sanction of the loan is subject to the credit report of the complainant.  The complainant had also paid a sum of Rs.4050/- towards documentation and processing charges and a receipt is also issued against the payment of this amount.  It is denied that loan was sanctioned in favour of the complainant.  Even at the time of submission of the application the complainant was duly informed that the sanction of the loan is subject to the credit report of the complainant.  The executives of the bank have clearly explained to the complainant the procedural requirements to be compiled by the bank in the granting of the loan and the complainant is absolutely aware of the same. It is submitted that the processing of the loan application was done immediately and the credit rating of the complainant was also subsequently checked.  In the said enquiry bank was not satisfied with the credit record of the complainant.  Accordingly the opposite party bank had requested to the complainant to produce the track record with any bank or financial institution to prove his repayment credentials and the complainant has not produced.  The financial records and bank statements were not produced by him to prove his financial strength and business income.  So the bank officials were not convinced about the financial strength and credit worthiness of the complainant.  On the basis it was decided that the loan cannot be granted to the complainant and the bank rejected the application for loan.  Immediately after rejection of loan application the same is also communicated to the complainant.   It is further submitted that complainant’s need of money to meet the hospital expenses of his father-in-law is no way connected with the vehicle to be sanctioned for purchasing the vehicle.  It is denied that opposite party bank has not disbursed the loan amount after entering into a loan agreement.   The opposite party bank has never executed any loan agreement with the complainant.  Further the opposite party state that the opposite party was always ready to refund the money of Rs.4050/- to the complainant which he was paid towards documentation and service charges.  The opposite party is even still ready to refund the money of Rs.4050/- to the complainant.  The policy of the opposite party bank that loan cannot be granted to a person with insufficient credit rating has been strictly adhered and the bank cannot be penalised for the same.  No opportunity requiring rendering service to the complainant arisen because the complainant had not produced documents convincing financial strength in repayment of the loan.   No agreement entered between the complainant and opposite party for rendering service.  The complainant not perfected status of consumer of the opposite party.  The complainant not availed banking facility from the opposite party.  As there is no agreement for rendering service between the complainant and opposite party and hence there is no question of deficiency of service.  There is no negligence on the part of the bank.

Issues

1. Whether the deficiency against the opposite parties are proved?
2. If so, reliefs and costs if any?

Issues (i) and (ii)

          Complainant and opposite parties filed affidavit and Ext. D1 is marked from the side of the opposite party.  Even though several specific posting were given for the appearance of the complainant for being cross examined, he failed to appear before this Forum.  So adverse inference is taken.  At the time of marking Ext. D1 the rejection slip, opposite party reiterated their stand that they are ready to refund Rs.4050/- to the complainant.  They expressed their willingness at the time of filing version itself.  But the complainant was hesitant to receive the same.  Going with the merits of the case, complainant fails miserably as the sanctioning of loan by banks are their sole discretion as it is the settled position of law. No one can breach it.  Hence complainant claims that a loan was sanctioned to him, later it was rejected.  But there is no evidence to prove this contention.  Only available document is the rejection slip of the opposite party which was marked as Ext. D1.  So in merits also complaint fails.  But even from the initial stage itself opposite parties are ready to refund Rs.4050/-.  This amount was with the opposite party from 22.12.2012.  complainant is eligible for 6% interest on this amount.  Apart from this complainant failed miserably to prove his case.

          In the result, complaint is allowed in part.  Opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.4050/- (Rupees Four Thousand and Fifty only) with 6% interest from 22.12.2012.  Time for compliance 2 months failing which complainant is eligible to get 9% interest till the date of realisation from the date of default.  No order on cost as compensation.

          A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 28^th day of February, 2018.

SL

C.C.No.126/2013

APPENDIX

1. COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS

2. COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS

3. OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS

4. OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS

       Sd/-

PRESIDENT

SL