DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.438 of 21-09-2010 Decided on 15-02-2011
Harvinder Singh,aged about 32 years, son of Sh.Darshan Singh son of Sh. Hari Singh, resident of village Zaid, District Bathinda. .......Complainant
Versus Punjab National Bank, Branch Tapa, District Barnala, through its Branch Manager. New Dhillon Tractors, G.T.Road, Rampura Phul, Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda, through its Prop./Partber.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President. Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member. Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member. Present:- For the Complainant: Sh.Ish Kumar, counsel for the complainant. For Opposite parties: Sh.Kuljit Pal Sharma, counsel for opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.2 exparte.
ORDER
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is an agriculturist and to get better output/yields, the complainant wanted to purchase new tractor by selling his old tractor. He approached the opposite party No.2 in the month of July, 2010 and the opposite party No.2made the valuation of the old tractor as Rs1,65,000/-and issued quotation slip for the price of new tractor Model 3630 TX 55 HP for a sum of Rs.5,80,000/-. The opposite party No.2 also advised the complainant to get the financial assistance from the opposite party No.1 for the purchase of new tractor. The opposite party No.2 called the officials of the opposite party No.1 in their showroom and arranged the talks/ negotiations between the complainant and officials of the opposite party No.1. After making preliminary inspection, the officials of the opposite party No.1 demanded some documents of the property for security of the proposed loan. The complainant told the opposite party No.1 that some of the land owned by him is already under charge with Oriental Bank of Commerce, against CC limit. After going through the papers and documents of title/jamabandi and knowing about the charge over the property, the officials of the opposite party No.1 agreed to sanction and disburse the loan of Rs.5,20,000/- for the purchase of new tractor and advised him to visit their bank on the next day. The complainant visited the office of opposite party No.1 whereby, the officials of the opposite party No.1 got deposited Rs.3,000/- from the complainant as process fee and further advised to contact their Advocate on their panel to get the legal opinion. He paid Rs. 2,500/- to the Advocate for the preparation of requisite documents, Non-Encumbrance Certificate, expenses of documents. After going through the record and finding the property to be fit for the security of the loan, he gave positive report in favour of the complainant. On 02.08.2010, the opposite party No.1 got the mortgage deed No.2243 executed in their favour for land measuring 32 kanals 10 marlas, situated at village Zaid, District Bathinda and mutation No.874 has also been sanctioned in favour of opposite party No.1, it obtained the signatures of the complainant on blank papers such as blank printed forms/documents without explaining the contents to the complainant. The complainant got signed the documents in good faith. The opposite party No.1 has also got opened a bank account of the complainant with their branch. He has agreed to deposit the margin money of Rs.60,000/- with the opposite party No.1 and remaining amount of Rs.5,20,000/- was agreed to be disbursed by the opposite party No.1 and in this way, after getting the margin money of Rs.60,000/- deposited from the complainant, the opposite party No.1 has to make the payment of Rs.5,80,000/- to the opposite party No.2. The complainant alleged that the official of the opposite party No.1 namely Sunil Kumar, Field Officer/Executive, demanded illegal gratification to the tune of Rs.20,000/- from the complainant, failing which, he refused to disburse the loan to the complainant. When the complainant did not agree to pay the gratification to the opposite party No.1, it closed his bank account, returned the documents to the complainant with the remarks 'Party has requested not to raise the loan from us. Kindly remove mortgage charge on 32K-10M'. No such request has ever been made by the complainant to the opposite party No.1. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint to seek directions to the opposite parties to disburse the loan amount of Rs.5,80,000/- after getting the margin money deposited and to pay Rs.Two lacs on account of mental tension and harassment alongwith litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5,000/-. 2. The opposite party No.1 filed its separate written statement and pleaded that the complainant himself is a defaulter of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch Tapa. The opposite party No.1 asked the complainant to produce No Due Certificate from the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Tapa and other banks but he could not produce the No Due Certificate from Oriental Bank of Commerce, Tapa being defaulter of the said Bank and as such, the complainant himself requested the opposite party No.1 that he did not want to avail loan and requested to return his documents. The Halqa Patwari has also requested to release the property of the complainant from mortgage charge but the complainant intentionally did not get his land redeemed. 3. The opposite party No.2 despite service of summon, has failed to appear before this Forum. Hence, exparte proceedings are taken against the opposite party No.2. 4. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. 5. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused. 6. The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant had applied loan for purchasing the new tractor by selling his old tractor. He decided to take financial assistance from the opposite party No.1 on the advise of the opposite party No.2. Some of the land owned by the complainant was already under charge with Oriental Bank of Commerce, against CC limit. After going through the papers and documents of title/jamabandi and after knowing about the charge over the property, the officials of the opposite party No.1 agreed to sanction and disburse the loan of Rs.5,20,000/- for the purchase of new tractor and further asked the complainant to complete some formalities and submit documents. The complainant had deposited Rs.3,000/- as processing fee and the opposite party No.1 advised him to contact their Advocate to take legal opinion. He paid Rs.2,500/- to the Advocate for the preparation of requisite documents, Non-Encumbrance Certificate, expenses of documents etc. On 02.08.2010, the opposite party No.1 got the mortgage deed No.2243 executed in their favour by the complainant for land measuring 32 kanals 10 marlas situated at village Zaid, Disttt. Bathinda, mutation No.874 has been sanctioned in favour of the opposite party No.1. It obtained the signatures of the complainant on some blank printed forms/documents without explaining the contents to the complainant. The complainant had signed the same in good faith. The complainant had already opened the bank account in their branch. The complainant had agreed to deposit the margin money of Rs.60,000/- with the opposite party No.1 and the remaining amount of Rs.5,20,000/- was agreed to be disbursed by the opposite party No.1 and in this way, after getting the margin money of Rs.60,000/- deposited from the complainant, the opposite party No.1 has to make the payment of Rs.5,80,000/- to the opposite party No.2. The learned counsel for the complainant has further submitted that Field Officer/Executive Mr. Sunil Kumar demanded illegal gratification to the tune of Rs.20,000/- from the complainant for sanctioning the loan. When the complainant refused to pay the said amount, the opposite party No.1 has closed the bank account of the complainant, returned the documents to the complainant with the remarks that Party has requested not to raise the loan from us, kindly remove mortgage charge on 32K-10M whereas the complainant had never requested the opposite party No.1 to do so. 7. The learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 has submitted that the complainant himself is defaulter of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch Tapa. The complainant had also submitted the affidavit dated 31.07.2010 to the effect that he is not defaulter of any bank/financial Institution and further stated in the affidavit that he has not raised any crop loan from any bank/financial institution except from Oriental Bank of Commerce, Tapa. The opposite party No.1 asked the complainant to produce the No Due Certificate of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Tapa and other banks but the complainant could not produce the No Due Certificate from Oriental Bank of Commerce, Tapa being defaulter of the said bank. The complainant himself requested the opposite party No.1 that he did not want to raise loan and requested to return the documents of the complainant and accordingly, all the documents of the complainant were returned back and even the Halqa Patwari has requested to release the property of the complainant from mortgage but the complainant did not get his land redeemed and had filed the present complaint concocting a false story. The opposite party No.1 has denied that it has ever got deposited Rs.3,000/- as processing fee as alleged by the complainant. The complainant had obtained the legal opinion from Advocate of the opposite party No.1 regarding his title over the property owned/possessed by him for creating charge over the said land but he has concealed the facts from the concerned Advocate that he is defaulter of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Tapa. The complainant got mortgage deed executed and registered in favour of the opposite party No.1 in a hurried manner without obtaining the No Due Certificate from Oriental Bank of Commerce, Tapa. When the complainant was asked to produce the No Due Certificate from Oriental Bank of Commerce, Tapa, he had failed to submit the certificate and himself requested that he did not want to get loan from opposite parties and requested to return the documents and accordingly the documents were returned back to him and the Halqa Patwari requested to release the property of the complainant from mortgage but the complainant intentionally did not got the land released from mortgage. The complainant had never deposited the amount of Rs.60,000/- with the opposite party No.1 and the account of the complainant had already been closed. The opposite party No.1 has never refused to sanction the loan to the complainant. The allegations of demanding illegal gratification is false as the opposite party has never demanded, so from the complainant. 8. A perusal of Ex.C-2 dated 02.08.2010 that the complainant had requested that “party has requested not to raise the loan from us. Kindly remove mortgage charge on 32K-10M.” The complainant has deposed in his affidavit that he is not defaulter of any bank/financial institution and have not taken any benefit of Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and he has not raised crop loan from any bank except from Oriental Bank of Commerce, Tapa. The complainant had paid Rs.3,000/- as processing fee to the opposite party No.1 and has got mortgaged deed No.2243 executed of land measuring 32 kanal 10 marlas situated at village Zaid, Distt. Bathinda, mutation No.874 in favour of the opposite party No.1 alongwith other documents. 9. The opposite party No.1 has sent a letter Ex.R-1 to Senior Manager, Audit Section, Circle Office, Bathinda and asked to send the following documents:- 1. Statement of Saving A/c at ours. 2. Statement of Irregular KCC a/c with OBC Tapa. 3. Certificate having Irregular a/c from BM OBC Tapa. 4. Photocopy of No Due Certificate. The opposite party No.1 has not sanctioned the loan to the complainant as he was defaulter of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Tapa and has not given No Due Certificate but has got his property mortgaged, these formalities regarding mortgage of the property are to be done after sanctioning of the loan but before disbursing the loan. A disbursal of loan is discretionary of the part of banking institution. As per the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla in case titled Shri Jiwan Kumar Sharma Vs. M/s United Commercial Corporation, 1999(2) CPC 462, wherein, it has been held that :- “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 3 and 17 – Loan case – Main grievance of complainant is that he was not granted a loan of Rs.2,50,000/- for which he has incurred a lot of expenditure and has suffered huge loss and mental agony – In various judgments of National Commission it has been observed that grant of loan comes under the discretionary power of the Banking Institutions – Non-sanction of loan or withholding of further advances comes under the discretionary jurisdiction of Banks which depends on the peculier facts of each case – There is no deficiency in service on part of respondent.” 10. Hence, non-sanctioning the loan is not deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.1 but it has got land of the complainant mortgaged before sanctioning the loan which should be done after sanctioning the loan and before the disbursal of loan and mortgage charge has not removed yet on the said property by the opposite party No.1 which tantamounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.1. Hence, this complaint is partly accepted with Rs.2,500/- as compensation and Rs.500/- as cost against the opposite party No.1 and dismissed qua opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.1 is directed to remove the mortgage charge on the said property No.32K-10M if not removed till date. Compliance of this order be done within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 11. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '
Pronounced in open Forum 15-02-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Dr. Phulinder Preet) Member (Amarjeet Paul) Member |