BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 17 of 2016
Date of Institution: 06.01.2016
Date of Decision: 19.07.2016
Shri Dilbagh Singh son of Shri Joginder Singh, resident of H.No.4340, Ranjit Pura, Near Sikh Missionary College, Amritsar.
2nd Address:
C/O M/s.National Electronics, Ganga Building, Amritsar.
Complainant
Versus
- State Bank of India, through its Chairman/ Authorised Officer, Parliament Street, New Delhi.
- State Bank of India, through its Branch Manager, Kabir Park Branch, Opposite GNDU, Amritsar.
- State Bank of India, RA & SME City Credit Centre, through its Chief Manager/ authorized Officer, 3-Rani Ka Bagh Branch, Amritsar.
Opposite Parties
Complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.
Present: For the Complainant: Rajesh Bhatia, Advocate
For the Opposite Party: Sh. P.K.Mody, Advocate
Coram
Sh.S.S.Panesar, President
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member
Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member
Order dictated by:
Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.
1. Sh.Dilbagh Singh has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that the complainant is having bank accounts with the Opposite Parties. The complainant had availed certain loans from the Opposite Parties, which have been reimbursed to the bank. One housing loan was also taken by the complainant from the Opposite Parties, which is still pending and the complainant is paying the installments regularly and properly. One properly of the complainant has also been pledged with Opposite Parties in the aforesaid loan. The complainant is good customer of the Opposite Parties. The complainant had applied for an education loan for the Master Degree in Canada of his daughter namely Ms.Harpreet Kaur. The last date to deposit all kind of educational fees and documents with the said educational institution was 5.11.2015, which was informed to the Branch Manager of the bank at the time of applying for the loan facility. The Branch Manager of the Opposite Parties bank assured the complainant that since he is a good customer of the bank, as such, the aforesaid education loan shall be released to him within a period of 10 days. It is important to mention over here that the Government of India is also giving some subsidy over the educational loans granted to the female child. All the relevant documents for the Master’s Degree of Ms.Harpreet kaur were submitted to the bank at the time of applying the loan facility. The complainant made various visits to the Branch Manger of the Opposite Parties, but he remained lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other . But however, he took more than 40 days of the complainant and the last date to deposit the education fee alongwith documents of Ms.Harpreet Kaur came close. In such in an emergency, the complainant was left with no other option but to raise the finance/ loan from open market on interest @ 30-36% per annum to fulfill her requirement . The Branch Manager of Opposite Parties did not inform the complainant whether the educational loan of the complainant has been accepted or rejected rather he wasted the valuable time of the complainant and as such in emergency and in a short span, the complainant arranged the funds from open market on such a high rate. The act of the Branch Manager of the Opposite Parties bank clearly shows that there is negligence and deficiency in service on their part, on account of which the complainant is facing a lot of mental tension, pain, agony, harassment and monetary loss also. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has prayed for grant of following reliefs:-
a) Opposite Parties may kindly be directed to pay a compensation to the tune of Rs.4,88,000/- to the complainant for higher interest paid by the complainant in open market.
b) The litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.11,000/- may also be awarded to the complainant.
c) Any other relief to which the complainant is found entitled under law and equity may also be awarded.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, Opposite Parties appeared and contested the complaint by filing joint written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complainant is not covered under the definition of consumer as per Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complaint as such is not maintainable; that there are disputed and complicated questions of facts and law involved as per the allegations contained in the complaint, the same can not be adjudicated upon by this Forum . The dispute requires adjudication from the Civil Court, the complaint as such, is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum & the same deserves dismissal; that the complaint, even otherwise keeping aside the other aspects of the merits, is not maintainable against the answering Opposite Parties; the complainant has not disclosed the correct and true facts pertaining to the controversy and has filed the present complaint by not disclosing the entire and true facts of the case. The complainant has not divulged the facts about the earlier CC loan limit availed in the name of M/s.National Electronions a proprietorship concern of the complainant, which loan account on scrutiny while processing the loan proposal by the sanctioning authority of the Opposite Parties was found to have gone NPA. It was also noted that the conduct of the complainant was not up to the mark as is required of a good borrower, the complainant, when was called upon through the legal notice so sent for irregularities in the stated CC Limit account, the complainant instead of coming forward to cooperate with the bank, refused to accept the service of registered legal notice. Apart from that, the conduct of the complainant in reference to the CC Limit account was noted not up to the mark, as the complainant forced the bank management to part with portion of outstanding dues in the said loan account by applying for compromise with offer to pay lesser amount to the bank which was outstanding & recoverable by the bank from the complainant. The lesser amount had to be accepted by the bank authorities under coercion of the complainant . The complainant deliberately has not disclosed all these aspects apart the aspect that the reflected worth of the complainant otherwise does not match to repayment capacity of the complainant of the huge amount demanded as loan facility, which was further to be enhanced with application of interest portion by the time the repayment schedule was to be commenced. The complainant earlier to filing of the instant complaint served a legal notice through his counsel, which was duly replied by the Opposite Parties by giving correct facts and circumstances about the account. The account was irregular and even became NPA and lateron the complainant insisted to get compromise the Opposite Parties by waiving part of the outstanding dues so as to avoid litigation indented to be thrust upon the Opposite Parties bank. The present complaint so far as the complainant is concerned is without any cause of action and even without any right of action, in the circumstances not maintainable, and is liable to be dismissed being false frivolous. On merits, facts narrated in the complaint have been specifically denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.
3. In his bid to prove the case, complainant made in the witness box as his own witness and filed duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copy of application Ex.C2, copy of letter Ex.C3, copy of certificate Ex.C4, copyof investment directions Ex.C5, copy of receipt Ex.C6, copy of application Ex.C7, copy of letter Ex.C8, copy of certificate Ex.C9, copies of e-mails Ex.C10, and Ex.C11, copy of demand notice Ex.C12 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Parties tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Rajesh Singh Thakur Ex.OP1,2,3/1, copy of reply to legal notice Ex.OP1,2,3/2, copy of order of rejection Ex.OP1,2,3/3, copy of cheques Ex.OP1,2,3/4, copy of application Ex.OP1,2,3/5, copy of letter Ex.OP1,2,3/6, copy of postal receipts Ex.OP1,2,3/7, copy of letter Ex.OP1,2,3/8, copy of compromise proposal Ex.OP1,2,3/9, copy of registered envelop Ex.OP1,2,3/10, copy of registered envelop Ex.OP1,2,3/11, copy of legal notice Ex.OP1,2,3/12, copy of postal receipts Ex.OP1,2,3/13, copy of letter Ex.OP1,2,3/14, copy of letter Ex.OP1,2,3/15 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Parties.
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.
6. The complainant has brought the instant complaint under section 11, 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that he had applied for educational loan facility for his daughter Ms.Harpreet Kaur for pursuing her study in foreign country. It is the case of the complainant that Branch Manager of the Opposite Parties promised to release the loan within 10 days of the application, but however, he went on lingering the matter on one pretext or the other and did not either sanctioned or refused the loan facility uptil 40 days of the filing of the loan application. In the meantime, the date for depositing the fee for course of Ms.Harpreet Kaur came and the complainant had to borrow money from the open market on interest @ 30-36% per annum under the compelling circumstances to fulfill all the requirements for the masters degree of his daughter Ms.Harpreeet Kaur. It is the case of the complainant that all this happened due to the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. But however, the banking institutions have sufficient discretion in allowing or refusing the loan facility to the customers. There is relationship of the proposed borrower and creditor inter se party, which does not fall within the purview of ‘consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As such, the complaint is not maintainable before the District Consumer Foras. Reliance in this connection can be had in case K.K.Foams Industries Vs. Punjab Financial Corporation 1(2004) CPJ 41 decided on 30.4.2003 wherein it has been laid down that the relationship of the complainant with the opposite party was of a borrower and a debtor. Hence, transaction involved is only of borrower and debtor- complainant not consumer. To the similar effect is the judgement of Hon’ble National Commission in M/s. Aggarwal Dyeing Industries Vs. Rajasthan Financial Corporation II(1991) CPJ 341 (NC) . There is absolutely no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Process of disbursement of loan is governed by different central and state authorities and financial institutions with their respective guidelines. Replying opposite party is a bank and has its own policy and procedure derived from set of guidelines. When a customer applies for a loan, the replying opposite party on satisfaction of credit worthiness of the customer to repay the loan amount sanctions the loan. It is imperative for the opposite party to verify the address, employment, source of income before the sanction of the loan and in the same process field verification is also done to ascertain the residential address of the customer and evaluation of loan eligibility etc. Opposite party incurs the expenses and the same are taken from the customer as processing fee/administration charges which are non-refundable. Thereafter replying opposite party on satisfaction in principle sanctions the loan facility on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. The actual disbursement of the loan is subject to the legal and technical clearance. After the loan is sanctioned in principle, the customer is to approach for actual disbursement of the loan. He or she is required to deposit with the replying opposite party the original title deed, previous original title deeds of the property and other documents required by the opposite party to arrive at a decision for giving bank credit. If the documents are produced as desired by the opposite party and the title to the property is found to be clear and marketable, then the opposite party disburses the loan and not otherwise. In this case it is no where stated that these formalities have been completed by the complainant. Even otherwise also, the complainant cannot compel opposite party No.2 to grant him the credit facility even though he has completed all the formalities because it is prerogative of the bank to grant the loan or not. Reliance in this connection can be had on I(1993) CPJ II (NC) Ashok Prabhakar Vs. SBI wherein it has been held that it is for the bank and financial institution to decide whether to assist any individual with term and working capital loans. If in their judgement they find that a party is not credit worthy or the project proposed to be financed is un viable, it cannot be mentioned that the refusal to finance the unit constitute deficiency in banking services. Further reliance can be had on III(1993) CPJ 322 (NC) wherein it has been laid down that the banks have considerable discretion in the matter of sanction of loan etc. Keeping in view all these factors in view the complaint filed by the complainant is not at all maintainable.Ratio of this judgement is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. As such, the instant complaint fails and the same is ordered to be dismissed. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the Civil Court or any other appropriate authority for the redressal of his grievance in accordance with law. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated: 19.07.2016. hrg
