Complaint filed on: 04-09-2010

                                                      Disposed on: 08-11-2010

BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052           

C.C.No.2053/2010

DATED THIS THE 8^th NOVEMBER 2010

PRESENT

SRI.D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT

SRI.GANGANARASAIAH., MEMBER

Complainant: -                       

Krishnaiah s/o. late Narayanappa,

Aged about 57 years,

R/o. No.14, 2^nd Main Road,

Kanteeravanagar,

Nandini layout,

Bangalore -96      

V/s

Opposite party: -          

                                                M/s. Reliance Consumer

                                                Finance Private Ltd,

                                                Rep. by its Managing Director,

                                                Brahmananda Court,

                                                3^rd Floor, Opp. to Prerana

                                                Motors, Lalbagh Road,

                                                Bangalore – 27

O  R D E R

SRI. D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT.,

          The Grievance of the complainant against the opposite party in brief is, that he had applied for a loan to OP by paying Rs.3,309/- through a cheque as processing charges on 29-6-2010. He had also enclosed certain documents alongwith application and OP after verifying all the documents had obtained signature of himself and a co-applicant. On 20-7-2010 he enquired with the OP regarding sanction of loan who told him to had rejected his application on the ground that the loan can not be sanctioned on the basis of documents produced. That he on 21-7-2010 meet the OP personally and had told that in addition to unregistered partition deed he will give a registered will executed by his mother in respect of a property which has been offered as security to the loan. Then when he after coming to know the rejection of his application, he demanded the OP to refund processing charges and documents but the OP has not refunded processing charges and thus prayed for a direction to the OP to refund processing charges and to award damages.

          2. OP who is served with the notice of this complaint has remained absent is set exparte.

          3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence reproducing what he has stated in his complaint. The complainant has produced a copy of letter, he had addressed to the OP for refund of processing charges, copy of account extract for having paid processing charges with a copy of legal notice he got issued to the OP. We have heard the complainant who is in person and perused the records.

          4. On going through the grievance of the complainant and the affidavit evidence filed by him, it is his case that after filing an application to the OP for sanction of loan, he had paid processing fee of Rs.3,309/- through a cheque and stated that he was confident of sanction of loan. It is further stated by him alongwith the application he had given unregistered partition deed as security for loan. Then when he came to know rejection of his application, on the ground that, loan can not be sanctioned on the basis of document produced he offered to give a registered will executed by his mother in respect of property which was offered as security. Even then also the OP declined to sanction loan and therefore has sought for refund of processing fee.

          5. One should bear in mind that a customer or a consumer can not seek sanction of loan from a financer or a bank as of right sanction of loan by a financer is subject to satisfaction of the financier about several aspects including repaying capacity and viability of the project besides satisfying themselves about security and guaranty furnished. In the case on hand, the OP was not satisfied with the unregistered partition deed and also offer of a registered will and rejected the application of the complainant, which can not be therefore held as arbitrary or vimsical. The OP no doubt had collected processing charges from the complainant as processing charges for processing the application of the complainant and even some time to pay remuneration to a professional to obtain legal opinion from the legal person. The OP after doing all that process if he had taken decision not to sanction loan that do not fall short of his service and it can not be termed as deficiency in their service.

          6. It is objective satisfaction of the financier that alone a criteria for sanction of loan. Therefore when the OP spent processing charges to consider the application of the complainant and finally rejected the loan application can not be ordered to refund processing fee. Hence, the complaint lack merits and therefore is liable to be dismissed. With the result, we pass the following order:

ORDER

Complaint is dismissed. No cost.

Dictated to the Stenographer, Got it transcribed and corrected, Pronounced on the Open Forum on this 8^th November 2010.

Member                                                          President