BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

SHRI. P. SUDHIR                               :         PRESIDENT

SMT. SATHI. R                                  :         MEMBER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR                           :         MEMBER

                                              C.C.No: 304/2009     Filed on  05/11/2009  

                                            Dated:  15..05..2015

Complainant:

P. Vidyadharan, S/o N. Padmanabhan, Nikhil Ellam, House No.15, Sreevaraha Nagar, Vallakkadavu-P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.

          (By Adv. V. Ajakumar)

Opposite parties:

1. M/s. State Bank of India, represented by the Regional Manager, P.B.No.14, M.G Road, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. The Chief Manager, M/s. State Bank of India, Thiruvananthapuram Branch, P.B.No:14, M.G Road, Thiruvananthapuram.

                    (Opp. Parties 1 & 2 by Adv. D.S. Jayachandran)

3. M/s. TATA Motors Ltd., Dr. V.B. Gandhi Marg, Mumbai-400 023, represented by Sri. Nithin Seth, Head Car Product Group.

          (By Adv. N.U. Nampoothiri)

This C.C having been heard on 30..04..2015, the Forum on 15..05..2015  delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR, MEMBER:

         Shri. P. Vidyadharan, Sreevaraha, Vallakkadavu-P.O., Thiruvananthapuram  is the complainant in this case. M/s. State Bank of India represented by Regional Manager is the 1^st opposite party, Chief Manager, State Bank of India is the 2^nd opposite party and TATA Motors represented by Sri. Nithin, Head Car Product Group, Mumbai is the 3^rd opposite party. The case of the complainant is as follows: M/s. TATA Motors, State Bank of India have notified about the booking of TATA Nano car mainly aiming the customers from common people. As per this agreement M/s. State Bank of India will provide financial assistance to the people who book the car through the branches of M/s. State Bank of India. Accordingly complainant booked a Nano LX BS 3 car on 09/04/2009 through M/s. State Bank of India, Thiruvananthapuram branch by paying Rs. 4,300/- to the bank and he was allotted Unique Identification Number (UIN) 110185120 by TATA Motors. On 23/06/2009 3^rd opposite party have issued the allotment letter to the complainant intimating him that he was allotted with TATA Nano LX BS 3 Lunar Silver Car and the same will be delivered between July – September 2010. At the time of booking the complainant specifically enquired with the opposite party bank regarding car loan disclosing his income and other details and only on the assurance given by the opposite party, complainant opted to book the car by remitting the booking charge. So he furnished the loan application with all details and documents required by opposite parties 1 & 2. Subsequently a letter dated 31/07/2009 was received by the complainant declining the car loan. So he approached the opposite parties 1 & 2 and its employees seeking explanation in respect of rejection of loan application without assigning any reasons for the same, all of them took a very hostile attitude to the complainant. This amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties and so on 12/08/2009 he filed an application  before the opposite parties seeking information in respect of sanction of loan procedures adopted in his loan application and reasons for rejecting his loan application etc. Opposite parties replied the same by stating the conditions adopted for sanctioning the loan. Complainant vehimently argues that there is unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and so he is to be compensated along with a direction to reconsider the car loan application and if it is found that he is not eligible for financial assistance by any reason. Opposite parties had to refund Rs. 4300/- which the complainant had paid for taking the car.

         2. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version. Opposite parties 1 & 2 filed joint version contending as follows: M/s. TATA Motors the 3^rd opposite party introduced new Nano car which can be booked through State Bnk of India by paying Rs. 95,000/- only, Rs. 1,20,000/- and Rs. 1,40,000/- depending upon the model chosen by the parties. M/s. TATA Motors had also announced that they will allot one lakh cars to those who booked the cars between April 9 and 24^th April 2009. The booking amount should be subscribed in full by cash. So State Bank of India announced a short term loan for the sole purpose of providing the money for booking the TATA Nano car. In the terms and conditions it is clearly mentioned that the loan is only for booking amount. The borrower has to pay an upfront fee for this and the same is non refundable also. In this case the bank sanctioned a loan of Rs. 1,40,000/-   and paid the amount to TATA Motors as booking money and charged the borrower, refund fee of Rs. 3,999/-. Those who availed booking finance had to remit money in full and liquidate the booking loan either by their own or by way of car loan. Otherwise booking will be cancelled by the 3^rd opposite party. It was also made clear by the bank that sanctioning of the booking loan will not in any way guarantee sanction of car loan. The complainant herein had booked a TATA Nano car under the said scheme and he had submitted application for a car loan Rs. 2,06,868/- which was forwarded to the concerned department for processing and scrutiny by the 1^st opposite party and the loan sanctioning authority of the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties found that complainant is eligible only for a loan limit of Rs. 50,000/- only  based on his income and other repayment obligations and he was called upon to produce satisfactory proof of additional income to be eligible for the loan applied. But the complainant failed to produce any satisfactory documents. Opposite parties 1 &2 had not given any assurance to the complainant that he will be given financial assistance overlooking the terms and conditions stipulated by the bank. On the other hand complainant after fully knowing about the terms and conditions specified by the bank had opted for booking the Nano car through State Bank of India. The bank has given letter to the complainant stating the reason for rejection of his application and also made him aware of the fact that he has an existing liability of housing loan, the EMI of which is Rs. 4,100/- as such he is eligible only for Rs.50,000/- based on the average annual income arrived from the IT returns submitted by the applicant. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2 and any point of time. The complainant is not a person eligible for loan of Rs. 1,75,000/- and he was not able to produce satisfactory proof of additional income to be eligible for the loan applied. So complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs prayed and the complaint is only to be dismissed with cost to the opposite parties.

         3. 3^rd opposite party TATA Motors Limited filed version contending as follows: Complainant had applied for booking of a TATA Nano Car through the financier, State Bank of India under a financial arrangement exclusively executed between the complainant and the financier upon fully agreeing with their terms and conditions and 3^rd opposite party was not a party to that contract and does not have any role over the act or conduct of the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties. Complainant with best known reasons, has not pleaded that complainant had voluntarily applied for the TATA Nano car upon fully knowing the obligations of the applicant to the financier under the financial arrangement, finance charges to be paid, forfeiture clause, refund of the booking amount, rejection of the booking or allotment etc. Therefore the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint on any alleged deficiency in service as stated in the petition against the 3^rd opposite party. There has been no deficiency in service on the part of the 3^rd opposite party. No prima facie case is being made out against the 3^rd opposite party nor any allegation or averment made in the complaint against 3^rd opposite party and so they may be exonerated from any liability.

         4. The points raised:

         (i) Whether complainant is eligible for the car loan?

         (ii) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

         (iii) Reliefs and costs, if any?

         5. Points (i) to (iii):  Complainant filed this complaint against the rejection of the loan application submitted before the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties in favour of the 3^rd opposite party. Complainant filed affidavit along with 9 documents which were marked as Exts. P1 to P11. He has been examined as PW1. Opposite parties filed affidavit along with 6 documents which were marked as Exts. D1 to D6. No documentary evidence is from the 3^rd opposite party. Perused the  documents and heard both sides. Application submitted by the complainant is admitted by the opposite parties. Nobody challenging its capacity to file this complaint. Complainant’s case is that he after proper verification and enquiry he submitted the booking form along with loan application with the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties after complying of the formalities required by the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties he was sanctioned with the booking amount also. So he was directed to pay the non refundable amount of Rs. 3,999/- towards processing fee. Opposite parties’ contention is that it is true that complainant was sanctioned a booking loan and there was forwarded to the 3^rd opposite party and short term booking the Nano car in his name and he was given a staff letter regarding the delivery of the said car. But only after this proper verification regarding the repayment capacity of the complainant was verified by the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties and on verification it was revealed that complainant failed to attain the required standard as specified in the guidelines of the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties. So he was asked to furnish additional documents to establish his income and repayment capacity. But he failed to do so. He was eligible as per the documents submitted by the complainant before the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties he was eligible for a loan of Rs. 50,000/- only. This will not fulfil the price of Nano car. So there was latches on the part of complainant in furnishing additional documents to establish his eligibility for getting the loan sanctioned. On verification of the documents produced by parties we are also convinced that there is nothing on record to show that he had furnished additional documents to prove his eligibility. So opposite parties 1 & 2 acted as per their rules and it is the discretion of the bank to sanction the loan as per the details furnished before them. So we are also convinced that there is nothing on record to show that complainant is eligible for the loan. The main prayer in the complaint is to reconsider the loan application by the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties. So we are giving the complainant an opportunity to furnish the documents as required by the opposite parties for getting financial assistance for purchase of Nano car if he desired. On going through the documents it is seen that the processing charge given by the complainant is non refundable. There has been find by both parties. So it has taken a valid document. So no reason can be ordered on that amount.

         In the result, complaint is allowed in part. Complainant is directed to submit proper application and documents as per the terms and conditions of opposite parties 1 & 2 within 2 months for availing car loan for TATA Nano car. Opposite parties directed to consider the same without prejudice if it is given within this period. No order on cost and compensation.       

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. 

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 15^th day of  May, 2015.                      

                                  Sd/-L IJU B. NAIR      :         MEMBER

   Sd/-P. SUDHIR            :         PRESIDENT

  Sd/- R. SATHI               :         MEMBER

  Ad.                       

C.C. No: 304/2009

APPENDIX

  I.  Complainant’s witness:

          PW1  :         P. Vidyadharan

II. Complainant’s documents:

P1      :  Copy of Kerala Kaumudi Daily Newspaper dated 24/04/2009 and copy of Desabhimani Newspaper dated 24/04/2009

P1(a)  :  Copy of advertisement of SBI

          P2      :  Copy of letter dated 23/06/2009 issued by 3^rd opposite party

               P3      :  Copy of personal assets and liabilities statement  P – Segment Loans of P. Vidyadharan

P4      :  Copy of letter dated 31/07/2009 issued by 2^nd opposite party to the complainant

P5      :  Copy of letter issued by the complainant to the 3^rd opposite party

P6      :  Copy of Information sought by the complainant under RTI Act from SBI

P7      :  Copy of Advocate notice dated 26/08/2009

P8      :  Acknowledgement card

P9      :  Reply notice dated 24/10/2009

P10    :  Copy of application form for Tata Nano Booking No.110185120

P11    :  Copy of Tata Nano allotments

III. Opposite parties’ witness               :         N I L

IV. Opposite parties’ documents:

D1 series      : Copy of Income Tax Department Acknowledgement (12   Nos.)

D2     :  Copy of Agreement Cum Authorisation letter.

Sd/-PRESIDENT

  Ad.