Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/22/161

Raman Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Dalip Kumar

05 May 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 161 dated 18.04.2022.                                                        Date of decision: 05.05.2022. 

Raman Sharma aged 56 years son of Sh. Balraj Sharma, resident of House No.17, Surya Enclave, New Punjab Mata Nagar, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana-141003. Ph. No.7888324238,

                                                Versus

  1. Vikas Sharma, Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Jandu Tower, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana-141003.
  2. The Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank, Regional Office, Near Waves Mall, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana-141001.
  3. The Zonal Manager, Punjab National Bank, Regional Office, Near Waves Mall, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana-141001.                                                                                                                            …..Opposite parties 

          Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act,               2019.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Gaurav Saggi, Advocate.

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                Heard. As per the allegations made in the complaint, the complainant’s son Charanjeev Sharma, a qualified engineer, intended to go to Canada for higher studies. The complainant applied for education loan with OP1. Previously also, the complainant had taken loan from the OP bank but the son of the complainant did not succeed in securing visa to Canada. As a result the loan was returned. The complainant again applied for education loan on 15.06.2021. The complainant made several visits to the OP bank but the OPs kept delaying the matter on one pretext or the other. The OPs also pointed out that the son of the complainant had secured less than 60% marks in bachelor degree and refused to disburse any loan. It is further alleged that the complainant met the concerned official in the Zonal office of the OP who informed the complainant that the cibil score of the complainant was very less and he should contact OP1. The complainant again approached OP1 and explained that his cibil score was proper and due to mistake  of the OPs, the account was declared NPA thrice but the OPs refused to give any detail of the NPA. According to the complainant, as a matter of fact, certain charges were to be taken from the complainant by the OPs which were deducted from the loan account which was disbursed to the complainant and at the time of audit, the account of the complainant was declared NPA due to mistake on the part of the OPs who did not ask the complainant to deposit the amount of charges and deducted the same from the loan account of the complainant. The complainant has been running from pillar to post to get the loan sanctioned, but due to this one academic year of the son of the complainant has spoiled. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant.

2.                Primarily, the grievance of the complainant is that the OPs had refused to sanction and disburse the education loan for the son of the complainant. As per settled law, no deficiency of service can be attributed to the bank in not disbursing the loan as it is open to the bank to decide whether or not to sanction a particular loan or not. As per complainant’s case, the request for grant of education loan seems to have been declined firstly on the ground that the complainant’ son had not secured well in graduation and secondly, the cibil score of the complainant was not up to mark. On both the grounds, the bank seems to be fully justified in not sanctioning the loan. Apart from that, the complainant has not placed on record any documents to prima facie show that the cibil core of the complainant was downgraded due to any act or omission on the part of the OPs. In our considered view, the complaint is not maintainable as it cannot be said to be a case of deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.

3.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint dismissed being not maintainable on the preliminary stage. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room but after registering the same.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:05.05.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Raman Sharma Vs Vikas Sharma                          CC/22/161

Present:       Sh. Gaurav Saggi, Advocate for the complainant.

                  

                   Heard for admission purpose. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is dismissed being not maintainable. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room but after registering the same.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:05.05.2022.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.