(Per Shri S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member)
(1) This appeal is already admitted on 03/08/2010. We, therefore, heard the appeal forthwith with the consent of both the parties.
(2) This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 28/05/2010 in Consumer Complaint No.280/2009, Santosh Parashram Najhare vs. Branch Manager, Union Bank of India Ltd., passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolhapur (‘Forum’ in short).
(3) The alleged deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/opponent bank is in respect of an educational loan which was sanctioned but was not disbursed. The forum directed the appellant/opponent bank to disburse the educational loan of `7 lacs to the respondents/complainants and to pay `5,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and `2,000/- as costs. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the opponent bank preferred this appeal.
(4) It is submitted on behalf of the appellant bank that their challenged to the impugned order in this appeal is restricted to the direction given to its branch to disburse the educational loan of `7 lacs. They will concede to the other reliefs granted by the forum.
(5) As far as the direction given of disbursing loan amount of `7 lacs is concerned, it is submitted on behalf of the appellant bank that subsequent to sanction of the loan, it was found that co-borrower-father of the complainant no.1-Santosh Parashram Nazare, namely, Parashram Vitthal Nazare was a defaulter and had taken loans or responsible for the others’ loan taken from various financial institutions. They invited our attention to the fact that the complainants have also not given declaration as contemplated in the sanction letter which mentioned under caption ‘Special Instructions’, “No dues certificate need not be insisted upon but a declaration/an affidavit may be obtained confirming that no loans are availed from other Bank/FIs etc.” This particular declaration or affidavit is admittedly not given by the complainants. The counsel for the respondents/complainants tried to explain the position (as to loan taken to which complainant No.2 is responsible) in his affidavit dated 05/10/2009. The fact remains is that the special instruction to disburse the loan, supra, was not followed and, therefore, the opponent bank did not disbursed the educational loan to the complainant. The action which is taken to safeguard its own interest by the Bank cannot be read as deficiency in service on the part of the opponent bank under provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We also find that the direction given by the forum, to disburse the entire loan of `7 lacs is on one and more counts, erroneous. We hold accordingly and allow the appeal to the extent of setting aside the said direction from the impugned order. Hence, the order.
ORDER
(1) Appeal is partly allowed.
(2) The direction to the bank to disburse the educational loan of `7 lacs as per the impugned order, is set aside.
(3) Rest of the impugned order remains undisturbed.
(4) The appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
(5) No order as to costs.
Pronounced on 20th March, 2013.
