DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.26/04.03.2008 Decided on : 11.09.2008 Baldev Singh, Murti Kaur children of Gajjan Singh S/o Sh.Nathal Singh, Village Sateekey, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS 1.The Budhlada Primary Co-operative Agriculture Development Bank limited (PADB), Budhlada District Mansa, through its Manager. 2.Sh.Baljit Singh, Deputy Manager, Primary Co-operative Agriculture Development Bank limited (PADB), Budhlada at present Deputy Manager, PADB, Talwandi Saboo, District Bathinda. 3.Sh.Asha Singh, Manager, Primary Co-operative Agriculture Development Bank limited (PADB), Budhlada at present Manager, PADB, Gidderbaha, District Muktsar. ..... Opposite Parties. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh.Pawan Kumar Singla, counsel for the complainant. Sh.S.K.Mehta, Counsel for Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 Sh.P.S.Behniwal, Counsel for Opposite Party No.3. Before: Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER: Baldev Singh and Murti Kaur (hereinafter called as the complainants) have filed the present complaint against The Budhlada Primary Co-operative Agriculture Development Bank limited (PADB), Budhlada District Mansa, through its Manager as well as Sh.Baljit Singh, its Deputy Manager and Sh.Asha Singh, its Manager (hereinafter called as Contd........2 : 2 : the OPs No.1,2 & 3 respectively) for issuance of a direction to the OPs to pay them the loan amount along with interest; Rs.3,500/- as counsel fee and Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony along with Rs.1,00,000/- as litigation costs. Brief facts of the case are that the complainants had applied for a bank loan of Rs.4,00,000/- on 21.1.2005 with the OP Bank. For the purpose, the complainants got their land mortgaged on 27.1.2005 in favour of the OP Bank. Thereafter instead of disbursing the loan amount to the complainants, Ops No.2 and 3 went on lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other. Apart from the above Ops No.2 and 3 had demanded illegal gratification from the complainants which was duly paid by them. But even then the loan amount was not disbursed to the complainants for the reasons better known to them. It was further alleged by the complainants that after the transfer of Ops No.2 & 3, Sh.Baldev Singh, Manager took over the charge and a notice in this regard was sent by them on 28.4.2006 to him also. The complainants ran pillar to post for the disbursement of the loan amount to them, but in vain. They even approached the office of the Deputy Commission, Mansa. After conducting inquiry into the loan case of the complainants, the D.C. Mansa on 18.10.2007 directed the OP Bank to disburse the loan amount to the complainants within 10 days. The Bank is a service provider and the complainants are their consumers because they have deposited total Rs.1100/- vide different receipts with the OP Bank in respect of their loan case. The complainants have also incurred expenses of Rs.3300/- for getting the mortgage deed in favour of the OP Bank. The OP Bank had not complied with the orders of the D.C.,Mansa and even refused to disburse the loan amount to the complainants. On the refusal of the opposite parties to pay the amount, the complainants alleges to have suffered mental harassment. Hence this complaint. In reply of the complaint filed by Ops No. 1 & 2 certain legal Contd........3 : 3 : objections have been taken to the effect that complainants are not the consumers of OP No.1, that it is not binding upon the Ops to advance loan to any body, the complainants have no cause of action to file the present complaint and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint. On merits, it was admitted that loan was applied by the complainants which was never sanctioned by the competent authority. The complainants got the mortgage deed executed in favour of OP No.1 without sanction of the loan. The elected executive committee of OP No.1 is the competent authority to sanction loan by passing a resolution which was never passed by such committee. The D.C.,Mansa was apprised of the correct picture. All other allegations were denied categorically and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made with costs and special damages. In a separate reply filed by OP No. 3 certain legal objections have been taken to the effect that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint, complainants are not their consumers and complaint is not maintainable it being false and frivolous. On merits, it was admitted that loan was applied by the complainants which was never sanctioned by the competent authority. According to the terms and conditions, the bank could any time, without assigning any reason, reject the loan to any loanee. Since the sister of the complainants namely Makhan Kaur was the defaulter of the OP bank, as such it was resolved by the committee not to sanction any loan to the complainants. All other allegations were denied categorically and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made by this OP also. Both the parties have led their respective evidence in the shape of affidavits and documents. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and carefully scrutinized the entire evidence placed on record by them. Contd........4 : 4 : Complainants have relied upon Ext.C-3 Loan application vide which they had applied for the loan amounting Rs.4,00, 000/- from the Ops on 21.01.2005 and since then till the filing of the complaint before the Forum on 4.3.2008 are running from pillar to post for the disbursement of the loan to them despite the fact that mortage deed Ext.C-3 has been executed by them in favour of the OP No.1 for the said purpose. They had duly deposited Rs.5500/- each on 25.2.2005 vide receipts Ext.C-8 and C-9 and Rs.505/- vide receipt Ext.C-1- and Rs.605/- vide receipt Ext.C-11 both dated 21.1.2005. The complainants have also levelled the allegation of demand of illegal gratification against OP No.2 and 3 for the sanction of the loan. After thorough enquiry conducted by the Deputy Commissioner, Mansa (report Ext.OP-7) and SSP,Vigilance, Mansa (report Ext.OP-17), departmental action stood already taken against the erring officers. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the Ops has placed reliance upon order dated 4.5.2006 Ext.OP21 of the M.D.,PADB, Chandigarh vide which it was decided to stop advancement of loans in the PADBs till further orders due to the fact that recoveries are very very poor in PADBs Zira, Mansa, Sardulgarh and Budhlada. The Ops have also placed reliance upon the resolution of the Board dated 1.11.2007 Ext.OP23. It was resolved that record of loan repayment by the family of the complainants being suspicious, loan advancement be not made to this family. Department action had already been taken against the defaulting officials in dealing with the loan case of the complainants. No argument has been advanced by the learned counsel for the complainants to rebut this stand of the Ops. After giving a thoughtful consideration to all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that no doubt the D.C.,Mansa vide letter dated 18.10.2007 (Ext.C-6) has directed the Manager, PADB, Budhlada for disbursing the loan amount to the complainants, but the loan advancement had been stopped by the order of Managing Director, PADB, Chandigarh vide order dated 4.5.2006 (Ext.OP-21) due to poor recoveries. Contd........5 : 5 : The Resolution passed by the Board Ext.OP-23 further makes it crystal clear that the family of the complainants being defaulter, the loan was not sanctioned to the complainants. Financial institution cannot be compelled to advance loan to each and every person. They are fully authorized to see the viability of the advancement of the loan. Keeping in view the above departmental obligations, the OP bank cannot be burdened with the liability to sanction loan to the complainants ignoring the loan repayment record of their family. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the complainants are liable only for the refund of the Rs.3300/- spent by them on account of executing the mortgage deed in favour of OP No.1. Act and conduct of OP No.1 in not deciding the loan case of the complainants at the earliest must have caused them mental agony and harassment for which complainants deserves some compensation which we assess as Rs.5000/-. In view of the foregoing reasons, we partly allow this complaint with a direction to OP No.1 to refund Rs.3300/- to the complainants spent by them on account of executing the mortgage deed in their favour and also pay Rs.5000/- as compensation. Complaint against Ops No.2 and 3 is dismissed, they being the employees of OP No.1. Compliance of the order be made within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order which shall be supplied to the parties free of charges under the rules and file be arranged, indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced: 11.09.2008 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, Member. Member.
