Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/4/2012

DIVISIONAL MANAGAR,CANARA BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

R. RAJENDRAN - Opp.Party(s)

10 Dec 2015

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

                      Present:     Thiru J. Jayaram,                                PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                        Tmt.  P. Bakiyavathi                            MEMBER

                                                                                   F.A. No. 4 / 2012

                                                                (Against the Order in C.C. No. 94 / 2010, dated 26-07-2011

on the file of the DCDRF, Nagapattinam)

 

Dated this the 10^th day of DECEMBER, 2015

  

1. Divisional Manager,                        ]

    Canara Bank,                                 ]

    Trichy                                            ]

]

2. The Branch Manager,            ]

    Canara Bank,                                 ]

    Vedaranyam,                                  ]

    Vedaranyam Taluk,                         ]  ..  .. Appellants / Opposite

    Nagapattinam District                     ]                              Parties.

 

                   Vs.

 

1. R. Rajendran,                                 ]

    S/o P.V.P. Ramachandra Devar,     ]

    Nadukadu Karuppampulam,   ]

    Vedaranyam Taluk,                         ]

    Nagapattinam District                     ]

]

2. R. Subburaman,                              ]

    S/o Rajendran,                                ]

    Nadukadu Karuppampulam,   ]

    Vedaranyam Taluk,                         ]  ..  Complainants / Respondents

    Nagapattinam District                     ] 

   

   

This Appeal coming up before us for final hearing on 05-11-2015 and on hearing the arguments, and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following Order:

 

Counsel for Appellants:             -        M/s TCA Srinivasan

Counsel for Respondents:          -        M/s  B. Karthikeyan for R1 & R2

 

J. JAYARAM, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

            This appeal is filed by the appellants / opposite parties against the order of the District Forum, Nagapattinam in C.C. No. 94 / 2010, dated 26-07-2011, allowing the complaint.

The case of the complainant is that the 2^nd complainant completed B.Sc. Information Technology in Tanjore, and he was selected by Anna University, Chennai for admission to Master of Computer Application in the counseling, which is a three year course. He had to pay Rs.31,500/- for each semester and Rs.1,89,000/- for 6 semesters in total, and hence he applied for a loan from the opposite parties and he submitted all the necessary certificates along with the loan application on 29-11-2009 to the 2^nd opposite party. The 2^nd opposite party informed him that he was eligible for the loan applied for by the complainants. The 2^nd opposite party required two guarantors with their  salary certificates.

   

2.       Accordingly, the 1^st complainant who is the father of the 2^nd complainant offered himself as the 1^st guarantor along with another guarantor who is also a school teacher and both of them produced solvency / salary certificates to the 2^nd opposite party. After meeting the 2^nd opposite party a number of times, and waiting for more than 12 months, there was no response from the opposite parties. At last, the 2^nd opposite party informed the complainants that the loan application and the documents were found missing in their office and the 2^nd opposite party advised the complainants to apply for the loan afresh. As per rules of the scheme, the bank is not supposed to insist on guarantors for a loan up to Rs.4 Lac. Apart from not getting the loan, the complainants suffered loss of money, loss of time, mental agony and sufferings and harassment, which amount to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and hence the complaint praying for direction to the opposite parties to sanction educational loan of Rs.1,89,000/- under the Central Government Scheme, on his loan application dated 29-11-2009, and to pay a sum of Rs.1 Lac as compensation for mental agony etc. and further sum of Rs.1 Lac towards compensation for loss of money and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards other expenses and to pay costs of Rs.5,000/-.  

 

3.       As per the version filed by the opposite parties, no loan application was received from the complainants and so the question of awarding compensation for deficiency in service does not arise.

 

4.       The District Forum considered the rival contentions and allowed the complaint holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the opposite parties have preferred the appeal.

 

5.       The contention of the respondents / complainants is that the 2^nd complainant who is the son of the 1^st complainant applied for a loan with the opposite parties and they submitted the loan application along with all the necessary certificates etc. to the 2^nd opposite party on 29-11-2009 as required by the 2^nd opposite party. His father and another teacher offered to be guarantors, and they produced their salary certificates to the 2^nd opposite party, but the 2^nd opposite party did not take any action on the application. After waiting for more than 12 months and meeting the 2^nd opposite party several times there was no progress and finally, the 2^nd opposite party informed the 2^nd complainant that no loan application submitted by the complainants was found in their office and that the 2^nd opposite party casually advised the complainants to apply for loan afresh.

 

6.       Per contra, the appellants / opposite parties would contend that no loan application was received from the complainants.

 

7.       Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the available evidence on record, we come to know that the loan application submitted by the complainants to the 2^nd opposite party is lost by the 2^nd opposite party in their office and so they have come forward with a false statement that no loan application was received from the complainants.

 

8.       Ex.A16 which is the notice dated 28-10-2010 issued by the 2^nd complainant to the 2^nd opposite party requesting them to sanction the loan without further delay.

 

Ex.A19 is another notice dated 19-10-2010 sent by the 2^nd complainant to the 2^nd opposite party again requesting them to sanction the loan without further delay, failing which he will be constrained to seek remedy through Court.

 

Ex.A23 is the letter dated 08-12-2010 sent by the 2^nd opposite party to the Principal, Maharaja Engineering College, Coimbatore where the 2^nd complainant was doing M.C.A. requesting the Principal to send a quotation for fees covering 3 years and the details of the fees in order to process the education loan to the 2^nd complainant.

 

Ex.A21  is the reply letter dated 09-11-2010 sent by the Divisional Manager of the bank / 1^st opposite party to the complainant stating as follows:

 

“Subject: Your representation regarding the education loan at our Vedaranyam Branch.

 

Reference: Your letter dated 19-10-2010.

 

This has reference to your above representation with regard to educational loan at our Vedaranyam branch.

 

We thank you very much for bringing the matter to our notice.

 

We have advised the Branch to examine your loan proposal on merits. You shall be hearing from them shortly. Please bear with us till such time.

 

Assuring you of our prompt service always”.

 

 

9.       Ex.A22 is the letter dated 25-10-2010, sent by the 2^nd opposite party to the Principal of the above college – informing that the 2^nd complainant who is a student of the above college had submitted all his papers like original “Bonafide Certificates”, but they could not trace it from the office premises and the student has complained that we have lost it somewhere and requesting the Principal to send Xerox copies of mark list and issue duplicate copies in order to enable them to process the loan application of the 2^nd complainant.

 

 

 

 

 

10.     Deposition of Thiru Manoharan

(Complainant side witness No.2

 

PW-2 has deposed that he is a school teacher, and at the request of the complainants to offer guarantee for the educational loan to be availed from the 2^nd opposite party bank, he agreed and submitted his photo and pay certificate (Ex.A15) to the 2^nd opposite party and signed the loan application form.

 

11.     It is pertinent to note that the 2^nd opposite party has deposed that he was the Manager of the 2^nd opposite party bank at the relevant period and he has simply stated that he did not remember whether the 2^nd complainant had submitted the loan application form but he did not deny it, and he has further stated that the 2^nd complainant was eligible to avail the educational loan under the Central Government Scheme.

 

12.     As pointed out by the District Forum in its order, the witness / 2^nd opposite party (Thiru Vaidyanathan) has deposed that there is no account maintained for the loan applications and admitted that Ex.A1 is the loan application submitted by the 2^nd complainant containing the signatures and photographs of the 1^st complainant and the guarantor. He has also admitted that Ex.A22 is the letter sent by the 2^nd opposite party bank to the college where the 2^nd complainant studied. It is further admitted that Ex.A19 and Ex.A21 are letters received from the 2^nd complainant and no reply was sent in this regard. He has further deposed that the loan application submitted by the 2^nd complainant is found missing in their office.

 

13.     From the above it is abundantly clear that the 2^nd complainant has submitted his loan application to the 2^nd opposite party bank and his loan application was found missing in their office; but they have not taken serious efforts to trace out the loan application along with the other certificates submitted by the 2^nd complainant and instead of admitting the fact, the opposite parties have simply denied the receipt of the loan application from the complainants.

 

14.     On considering the entire materials on record, we hold that the complainants have established their case of deficiency in service against the opposite parties and therefore, the 2^nd complainant is entitled to claim compensation from the opposite parties.

 

15.     The District Forum has allowed the complaint holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not sanctioning the loan and has passed an order directing the opposite parties to sanction the loan of Rs.1,89,000/- and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and sufferings etc. and to pay costs of Rs.2,000/-.

 

16.     It is relevant to note that the order was passed by the District Forum on 26-07-2011 and the loan application is dated 29-11-2009, and the 2^nd complainant would have already completed the course long back and so the question of sanctioning the educational loan does not arise at this stage. Further, law is well settled that Consumer Forum is not empowered to order or compel the bank to sanction any loan since the question of sanctioning loan is a matter of discretion of the bank, considering the merits of the loan application. Therefore, we are constrained to set aside the order of the District Forum and we have to modify the reliefs.  

 

17.     In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, setting aside the order of the District Forum and directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) towards compensation for deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) as compensation for mental agony, sufferings and harassment, and to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards costs.

 

Time for compliance - two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case of default to comply with the order, the amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 12 % p.a. till compliance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

TMT.  P. BAKIYAVATHI                                      J. JAYARAM         

           MEMBER                                       PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER