JUSTICE V.K. JAIN (ORAL) The complaint/respondent applied to the petitioner Bank for a term loan of Rs.2 crores for constructing a warehouse. The application for grant of the said term loan was submitted in August, 2009. The loan was, however, sanctioned after about 7 months vide sanction letter dated 6.3.2010. Vide letter dated 29.04.2010, the complainant was asked by the petitioner Bank to complete the requisite formalities for disbursal of the loan. The complainant informed the Bank that he had already availed the loan from another Bank, namely, Canara Bank which had sanctioned the same within 30 days. Thus the loan was not availed by the complainant. Despite his having not availed the loan, a sum of Rs.104785/- was deducted from his account towards 50% of the service charges. Being aggrieved, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint. 2. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner Bank which interalia stated in its reply that the processing of the loan was delayed for want of requisite documents from the complainant. It was further stated in the said reply that recovery of service charges was justified in terms of the sanction letter issued by the Bank. 3. The District Forum vide its order dated 27.5.2016, directed the petitioner Bank to recover only 25% of the processing fee instead of 50% of the same. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order of the District Forum, the complainant approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order 17.7.2017, the State Commission allowed the appeal filed by the complainant and directed the petitioner Bank not to recover any amount towards payment of service charges. Being aggrieved from the order of the State Commission, the petitioner Bank is before this Commission by way of this revision petition. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner Bank that they having devoted considerable time on processing the loan application of the complainant are entitled to recover service charges from him. It is, however, not in dispute that at the time of submitting the application for grant of loan, the complainant had not agreed to pay any service charges to the petitioner Bank in case the loan was not availed by him. I have perused the loan application submitted by the complainant and no such commitment is contained in the said application. No processing fee/service charges were collected from the complainant before processing his loan application. In the absence of an agreement between the parties, the petitioner Bank, in my view, could not have recovered service charges from the complainant, in the event of his not availing the loan sanctioned to him by the petitioner Bank. It is true that the Bank must have spent considerable time in processing the loan application of the complainant but, this is also equally true that the complainant could not have waited indefinitely for the loan to be sanctioned and, therefore, was justified in approaching another Bank which took only 30 days to sanction the same loan. In any case, what is important is whether there was any contractual obligation on the part of the complainant to pay the service charges in the event of his not availing the loan sanctioned by the petitioner Bank. There being no such contractual obligation and the petitioner Bank having not collected any processing free/ service charges before processing his loan application, the Bank, in my opinion, was not entitled to recover any service charges from the complainant if he decided not to avail the loan sanctioned by the Bank. The view taken by the State Commission, therefore, does not call for interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs |
