D.O.F:22/06/2015
D.O.O:10/02/2022
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.No.155/2015
Dated this, the 10th day of February 2022
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M: MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Raveendran.N
S/o Late Chittayi,
Nilankara House,
R/at Nayakayam, P.O Attenganam : Complainant
Beloor Village of Hosdurg Taluk
Kasaragod District
(Adv:. K. Dinesh Kumar)
And
1. Regional Manager,
State Bank of India,
Regional Office at Kannur
P.O. Kannur, Kannur District
: Opposite Parties
2. Senior Manager,
State Bank of India,
Kanhangad Branch, Ram Nagar Road,
P.O Kanhangad, Hosdurg Taluk, Kasaragod District
(Adv: Mohan Prakash.K)
ORDER
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
The complainant filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act:
The complainant is as driver by profession. He has fifty cents of immovable property in Beloor village, comprised in RS No: 416/3 as per the registered gift deed document number is 1052/1987. There is no encumbrance over the property, in September ,2013 he approached Opposite Party No:2 and submitted his housing loan application. He offered the above said property. His loan application number was Los No: 1881907. He had submitted his original title deed, basic tax receipt, possession certificate and plan prepared by the concerned village officer, encumbrance certificate and all other required and relevant documents. In addition to that complainants son, who is working in a government department, stood as a co-obligant of the loan and offered to repay the loan by periodical transfer from his salary. After the compliance of all formalities Opposite Party No: 2 sought legal opinion and found his title deed and the other documents were perfect and suitable for the sanctioning of the housing loan. He was waiting for a positive reply from Opposite Party No:2. He was expecting to start his house construction at the earliest as the cost of construction is increasing day-by day. Several times he approached Opposite Party No: 2 to enquire about his loan. Every time Opposite Party No: 2 was giving vague reply and told him to wait for the regional officers sanction. In fact there was no necessity for Opposite Party No: 2 to get sanction from the regional Office. Being Senior Manager , he has jurisdiction and power to sanction the loan by himself.
2. On 19-03-2014 Opposite Party No:2 expressed his inability to consider the loan application and the complainant to take back his original documents submitted. The reasons stated in the said letter not at all valid one and sustainable in law. In fact the required registered title deed (No 105211987) and other original documents are perfect and more than sufficient to sanction housing loan. The gift deed produced by complainant was genuine and legally valid documents. The rejection of complainant’s loan application is illegal and without justifiable reasons and only a lame excuse not to sanction loan. Both Opposite Parties are delayed and illegally refused to sanction complainants housing loan. There is deficiency in service and negligence on the part of Opposite Parties. Complainant approached another bank for the same purpose with said documents and loan sanctioning within 15 days. The complainant claiming compensation and cost of litigation.
3. The Opposite Party filed their version denying the allegations. It is submitted that there was no proper execution of the gift deed No: 1052/1987. The allegations contained in the complaint are not correct. It is true that the complainant had applied for housing loan before the Opposite Party No: 2. The respondents while sanctioning the loan has to ensure that the loan documents submitted by the complainant or any other person is genuine and enforceable. It is the discretion of the respondent to decide whether Opposite Parties loan has to be sanctioned or not depending on various parameters such as the marketability of the property offered as security, genuiness of the title deeds, re-paying capacity of the borrower etc. On verification of the title deeds of the property offered as security by the complainant it was found that the same was not properly executed and hence defective. Accordingly complainant was advised to cure the defect which the complainant failed to rectify and hence the Opposite Party had no other alternative but to return the file to the complainant. It is true that the complainant has issued a registered notice and proper reply to the same has been sent to the said notice. It is submitted that the Opposite Parties have acted according to law and no illegal or unauthorized act has been committed by Opposite Parties. No damage is caused to the complainant as claimed by him complainant is not entitled for any compensation and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
The complainant filed chief affidavit and documents marked as Ext A1 to A7. A1 is the title deed, Ext A2 is the basic tax receipt, Ext A3 is the letter by Opposite Party returning document, Ext A4 lawyer notice, Ext A5 and A6 postal Acknowledgment Ext A7 is a loan sanction letter from HDFC.
4. Chief affidavit for Opposite Party is filed and cross examined as Dw1. Ext B1 to B4 documents marked from to their side. Ext B1 is the copy of letter to complainant and Ext B2 and B3 is the circular issued to the bank. Ext B4 is letter bank. Both side filed arguments.
As per contentions following points arise in the case.
- Whether there is an deficiency in service from Opposite Parties.
- Whether complainant is entitled for compensation? And if so for what reliefs?
5. The complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party as they rejected the loan application of the complaint on the ground that gift deed is defective. Opposite Party has no case that gift deed is not as per law and no legal opinion to sought in the case. Opposite Party filed version admitting the loan application but not sanctioned the loan mentioning that gift deed is defective where as HDFC bank accepted the very same title deed and sanctioned the loan.
6. The case of the complainant is that he is eligible for the loan and his son is a Government employee offered as security. There application for loan was refused on the ground that gift deed is defective. So loan cannot be sanctioned. Even after issuance of notice, Opposite Party was not ready to help a needy applicant. According to the complainant it is a clear case of deficiency in service and suffered mental agony due to negligent act and dereliction of duty caused upon nationalized banks by Government and Reserve Bank of India.
7. The Evidence of Dw1 shows that loan is rejected for the reason that there is no proper execution of the gift deed and is not created but not able to explain any supporting lawful reasons. No legal opinion is sought nor produced in the case by Opposite Party. The Opposite Party admits that has not read the loan applications.
8. No document contain of any specific laws, rules or provisions are brought before us for proving that loan is rejected as title deed is defective for want of proper execution without referring to even a legal opinion on this point. When there is no specific law prohibiting grant of loan in the given circumstances the refusal is a clear deficiency in service. Loan cannot be refused to a needy and eligible person on flimsy grounds. Which is against the objects of the purpose of banking practice. It is therefore we find that the act of Opposite Parties amounts to clear deficiency in service for which complainant is entitled for compensation. Complainant also eligible for cost litigation. In the circumstances of the case we find that Rs. 1,00,000/- will be a reasonable compensation.
In the result complaint is allowed in part Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only) to the complainant and also Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) for cost of litigation within 30 days of the receipt of the order.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Title deed
A2- Basic tax receipt,
A3- The letter by OP returning document
A4- Lawyer notice
A5 & A6 Postal Acknowledgment
A7- Loan sanction letter from HDFC
B1- A letter Dt: 21/02/2014
B2 and B3- The circular issued to the bank
B4- Letter from bank Dt: 21/02/2014
Witness Examined
Pw1- N Raveendran
Dw1- Pushpalatha. P
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Senior Superintendent
Ps/
