Reserved

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P. Lucknow.

Appeal  No. 455 of  2015

Axis Bank Limited, U.P. Cooperative Bank

Building, Opp. PMG Office, M.G. Road,

Lucknow through  its Branch Manager.              …Appellant.                                                                         

Rakesh Kumar s/o Rma Dass,

R/o E-2/684, Vinay Khand, Gomti Nagar,

Lucknow.                                                        .…Respondent.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri Rajendra  Singh, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Vikas Saxena, Member.

Sri  S.B. Srivastava,  Advocate for Appellant.

Sri M.K. Pandey, Advocate for the respondent.

Date  18.7.2022

JUDGMENT

Per Mr. Rajendra Singh, Member: This Appeal has been filed under Section 15 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 5.2.2015  passed by Ld. District Forum-II, Lucknow in Complaint Case no.1241 of 2012.

The brief facts of the appeal are that, that the respondent/complainant applied for home loan for construction of a house but after sanctioning of the home loan, it was found during technical visit that the house proposed to be constructed was already constructed and no scope of other construction was there and as such, the loan could not be disbursed. The appellant bank being the custodian of the public money is legally authorized even not to disburse any sanctioned loan to be proposed borrower if it comes to known at any time that the public funds is going to be diverted and misused by the proposed borrower.

(2)

          The impugned order is an ex-parte order without providing fair opportunity of hearing to the appellant and the same is not sustainable in law. The legal and technical clearance were the precedents condition of disbursal and technical clearance was failed. The ld. Forum below committed error in law and fact by holding that the services rendered by the appellant bank are defective without any such material on record.

          There is no deficiency in services of the appellant bank. The impugned judgment and order is based on surmises and conjectures only and the finding drawn against the appellant Bank are perverted and erroneous. Therefore it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Commission be pleased to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order.

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant Sri S.B. Srivastava and ld. Counsel for the respondent Sri M.K. Pandey. We have perused the pleadings, evidence and documents on record.

We have seen the impugned judgment and order passed by the ld. District Forum which quoted below:-

“परिवादी का परिवाद आंशिक रूप से स्‍वीकार किया जाता है। विपक्षी को आदेश्ति किया जाता है कि वह इस निर्णय की तिथि से दो माह के अंदर परिवादी को रू0३२३०/-, रू0२१०/- एंव रू0५६१८/- मय ब्‍याज दौरान वाद व आइंदा बशरह 9 (नौ) प्रतिशत साधारण वार्षिक ब्‍याज की दर के साथ अदा करें। इसके अतिरिक्‍त विपक्षी परिवादी को मानसिक क्‍लेश हेतु रू0५०००/- तथा रू0२०००/- वाद व्‍यय अदा करेंगें, यदि विपक्षी उक्‍त निर्धारित अवधि के अंदर परिवादी को यह धनराशि अदा नहीं करते हैं तो विपक्षी को समस्‍त धनराशि पर उक्‍त तिथि से ता अदायगी तक 12(बारह) प्रतिशत वार्षिक ब्‍याज की दर के साथ अदा करना पड़ेगा।”

It is clear that the loan has not been disbursed because the construction has already been made. Upon that the Ld.

(3)

Forum passed the said order to return the money deposited by the complainant in different heads and also imposed interest.

We are of the opinion that as the complainant was held not entitled for the loan because he furnished wrong information to the bank, no question of any interest arises. At the same time, it was the duty of the bank to survey the property before sanctioning the loan but the bank first sanctioned then visited the spot. So, the amount awarded for mental agony and cost of the suit is perfectly right. Rest part of the judgment needs no interference except that, that after 30 days of the judgment of appeal, if the said amount is not paid, the appellant shall pay interest @ 10% commencing after 30 days of the judgment of appeal till actual payment. The appeal is decided accordingly.

ORDER

The appeal is partially allowed. The impugned judgment and order is amended to the extent that no interest either 9% or 12% shall be payable within 30 days of the judgment of this appeal but if the said amount has not been paid within 30 days of the judgment of this appeal, an interest @10% after 30 days of the judgment of appeal till the date of actual payment shall be paid by the appellant. Rest part of judgment is confirmed.

The stenographer is requested to upload this order on the Website of this Commission today itself. 

          Certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties as per rules.     

       (Vikas Saxena)                              (Rajendra Singh)

            Member                                    Presiding Member

(4)

Judgment dated/typed signed by us and pronounced in the open court.

Consign to record.

       (Vikas Saxena)                              (Rajendra Singh)

            Member                                    Presiding Member

Jafri, PA II

Court 2