Punjab

Faridkot

CC/19/218

Kulwinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab and Sind Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Tulsi Dass

26 Feb 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

Complaint No. :          218 of 2019

Date of Institution :      05.09.2019

Date of Decision :         26.02.2020

Kulwinder Raj aged about 40 years son of Pal Chand son of Bishan Ram resident of Village Deep Singh Wala, Tehsil and District Faridkot.

.....Complainant

Versus

The Punjab & Sind Bank, Branch Village Deep Singh Wala, through its Branch Manager.

                                                                                      ......OP

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh Ajit Aggarwal, President,

                    Smt. Param Pal Kaur, Member.

Present:       Sh Tulsi Dass, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

 Sh Ranjit Singh Kakkar, Ld Counsel for OP.

 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                    Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OP to refund the amount of Rs.15,000/- spent by him in preparing loan

cc no.218 of 2019

documents and for further directing them to pay Rs.50,000/-as compensation for harassment and mental agony besides litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-to complainant.

2                    Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant owns agriculture land measuring 10 kanals and 0.5 marlas and he wanted to obtain loan/limit over his land. For this purpose, he approached OP Bank in June, 2019 and OP verified his all property documents and also checked CIBIL Report and after thorough verification, OP agreed to give loan and demanded legal opinion, bonds and other documents from his for granting the loan. Complainant spent Rs.15,000/- and his precious time on all this documentation and completed all the formalities as recommended by OP Bank, but after completion of all formalities and submission of requisite documents, OP refused to sanction loan to him for the reasons best known to them. it is submitted that during the period of completion of formalities for sanction of loan, mother of complainant was not well and was on her death bed and as due to spending his time in completing formalities as per directions of OP, complainant could not find proper time to look after his mother and ultimately, she died on 24.07.2019. Grievance of the complainant is that despite several visits and repeated requests, OP did not pay any heed to the genuine request of complainant to sanction the loan, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP. Complainant

cc no.218 of 2019

has prayed for directions to OP to refund the amount of Rs.15,000/-spent by him in completing formalities for obtaining loan  alongwith compensation and litigation expenses besides main relief. Hence, the present complaint.

3                          Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 11.09.2019, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                  On receipt of the notice, OP filed reply taking preliminary objections that complaint in hand is not maintainable being premature as he has not approached the OMBDUSMAN, which is competent to look into the complaints. However, on merits, answering OP has denied all the allegations being wrong and incorrect and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on their part. it is averred that on going through the report of Experian, it was found that previously a suit was filed against complainant which was settled on 30.04.2015. The Bank which filed suit against complainant, contributed some amount in settling the account and moreover, availing the loan facility is not a constitutional right and this facility can be denied at any time during the process of scrutiny of documents. It is further averred that integrity of complainant is doubtful and the borrower, who has once defrauded and taken the benefit of rebate, cannot be advanced any loan at any time in future. All the other allegations of complainant are denied being wrong and incorrect and it is

cc no.218 of 2019

reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5                      Parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The ld Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-24 and then, closed his evidence.

6                                 In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Counsel for OP-1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Swargjeet Sah as Ex. OP-1 and then, after availing sufficient opportunities, OP did not conclude their evidence, therefore, vide order dated 17.02.2020 evidence of OP was closed by order of this Forum.

7                                  We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully perused the affidavits & documents placed on the file by complainant as well as opposite party.

8                                 From the careful perusal of record and after going through the arguments advanced and evidence led by respective parties, it is observed that case of the complainant is that

 

cc no.218 of 2019

owns agriculture land measuring 10 kanals and 0.5 marlas and he wanted to obtain loan/limit over his land. He showed his all documents to OP, who after verification of documents and checking the CIBIL Report, agreed to grant him loan and asked him to provide legal opinion, bonds and other documents for granting the loan. Complainant incurred Rs.15,000/- and his precious time on all this documentation and completed all the formalities, but OP refused to sanction him loan without assigning any reason. He requested OP to refund the amount of Rs.15,000/-spent by him in completing all papers, bonds and legal opinion, but OP neither granted him loan nor refund the expenses incurred by him in all this process. All this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP and has caused harassment and mental agony to him. In reply, OP Bank has denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that as per Experian Credit Information Report (Consumer), previously a suit was filed against complainant which was settled on 30.04.2015. The Bank which filed suit against complainant, contributed some amount in settling the account.  As per OP Bank availing the loan facility is not a constitutional right and this facility can be denied at any time during the process of scrutiny of documents and moreover, due to doubtful integrity of complainant, he cannot be advanced any loan. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.

 

cc no.218 of 2019

9                                         It is observed that grievance of complainant is that he applied for loan and on demand of OP bank, he completed all formalities. He obtained legal opinion, got prepared bonds and other documents for procuring loan and incurred Rs.15,000/-on entire process, but Opposite Party Bank did not sanction him loan without any reason. There is no doubt that it is  discretionary power of Bank to grant or not to grant loan to anybody, but this denial was required to be made by them at the time of verification and not at the last stage when complainant completed all formalities as per their recommendations. They thoroughly verified the property documents of complainant and also checked CIBIL Report wherein it was clear that no amount or dues relating with any bank were outstanding towards him and he has never defaulted any bank. After verification of all documents, they should have flatly refused the complainant but it is deficiency in service on the part of OP in asking the complainant to complete formalities and to bring legal opinion and bonds and to get prepared documents for getting sanctioned the loan, which they could have denied just after verification of documents and CIBIL and Experior Report. OPs should have denied him at the time of verification and action on the part of OP in demanding legal opinion and other documents and even getting the land of complainant mortgaged in their favour in security of loan and getting the entries recorded in the revenue record from complainant is totally inappropriate and is not justifiable and it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP.

cc no.218 of 2019

10                                                From the above discussion and keeping in view the evidence and pleadings made by respective Parties, this Forum is of considered opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP. Hence, complaint in hand is hereby allowed with directions to OP Bank to pay Rs.8,000/- to complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him alongwith Rs.2,000/-as cost of litigation incurred by him in present complaint. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 26.02.2020

(Param Pal Kaur)          (Ajit Aggarwal)

 Member                          President