D.N.Chowdhury,J.,President.

 

 

                                                 The Consumer appeal No.6(M)1995 preferred by Mrs.S.V.Blah is directed and arises out of the judgment and order dated 6.5.1995 passed by the learned District Forum, Shillong.

 

                                                 The Consumer Appeal No.7(M)1995 is preferred by the opposite party bank, SBI, Home Finance, Guwahati against the direction of the District Forum to extend additional loan facility to the respondent of Rs.2 lakhs in the event of clearing the outstanding installments.

 

                                                 Since the facts and the laws involved in both the appeals are of similar nature, the two appeals were heard together for disposal.

 

                                                 Considering the hardship of Mrs.S.V.Blah, a debtor as well as keeping in mind the interest of the bank this Forum allowed time to the parties for ironing out the difference and arrive at a reasonable solution between the parties. Our efforts failed.

 

                                                 It was alleged in the complaint that during 1990-1992 she found an advertisement in the newspaper wherein it was advertised that the SBI., Home Finance Ltd. were granting a maximum loan of Rs.5.00 lakhs for construction of a house for which the main criteria to be eligible to the loan was the capacity to pay back and to offer adequate security besides fixed deposit. Persuaded by the advertisement the complainant made an application for loan to the above bank and as per direction of the bank the complainant complied with the necessary formalities and documentations like mortgaging the property worth Rs.10 lakhs and no objection certificates from the District Counsel and a Guarantor and deposited a fixed deposit of Rs.1 lakh along with the processing fee for a loan of Rs.5.00 lakhs with the assurance that after utilizing the amount of Rs.3.00 lakhs the remaining Rs.2.00 lakhs would be disbursed subsequently after submitting the detailed estimate with Income Tax Certificate by the Deputy Commissioner.

 

The Complainant in due course submitted necessary documents as required by the bank for the remaining amount of Rs.2.00 lakhs to the aforesaid bank and also indicated about the incompletion of the building for want of the additional loan. The Complainant intimated the bank about her plight for which she was forced to live in a small garage due to incompletion of the building.

 

                                                 The Respondent filed written statement and explained about the scheme of long term housing loans and stated that the loan is provided on the strength of capacity of repayment and not on the value of the property. The bank admitted that the complainant applied for housing loan of Rs.5.00 lakhs but on processing of the application, the loan of Rs.3.00 lakhs was only sanctioned amount. The bank by the sanctioned letter also enquired from the complainant to clarify how she would cover up the difference of Rs.1,43,000/- after availing of loan and investing their own share for which the complainant stated that the same would be adjusted by raising funds from the family members. The bank further stated that when the complainant had approached for the additional loan of Rs.2 lakhs vide letter dated 9.6.1993 and the said offer was under process the complainant defaulted in payment of monthly installments of Rs.4,885/- per month against the loan amount already paid since September,1993. The opposite party reminded the complainant examined her husband Retd. Major A.N.Ferris as her witness.

 

                                                 From the materials on record it thus appears to us that against the loan of Rs.5 lakhs was only sanctioned. It was also not disputed that there was a default in the payment of monthly installments against the loan amount of Rs.3 lakhs. The learned District Forum after considering all the aspects of the matter concluded as follows:-

 

                                                 “ After going through the documents and when it was enquired from the complainant, it was admitted that the repayment of the monthly installments was not paid since 1993 but the month is not verified whether it was from September or October and the non payment of the monthly installments as per the complainant was because the opposite party did not consider of the additional loan, We failed to understand the stand taken by the complainant for non payment of the monthly installments for the loan already sanctioned and accepted by her just because the additional amount of loan was not sanctioned. It may be pointed out here that even if the additional loan was not sanctioned, still then the complainant has no right to default in repayment of the monthly installments with regard to the loan already availed. However it was submitted by the complainant before us that if this forum would graciously pleased to consider to direct the opposite party to grant the additional loan of Rs.2 lakhs, she also undertakes to clear all the pending installments. It was not disputed that the properties of the complainant has been mortgaged with the opposite party and the Guarantor was also there. From the fact and circumstances of the case in question, it is an admitted position that the opposite party have already processed the prayer of the complainant for an additional amount of loan, but while the matter in the process, ultimately it came to a stand-still, and as per the opposite party contention and admission, the reason is because the complainant defaulted in repayment of the monthly installments.

 

                                                 We are also tend to agree with the opposite party’s view that the complainant has no right to default in payment of the monthly installments only for the reason that the additional amount of loan was not considered and that the right to sanction the loan cannot be dictated by the complainant. However, in this case as per the admission of the opposite party the additional loan has already been processed and as per annexure viii, the Head Office has already approved an amount of Rs.1,64,000/- as enhancement. Therefore, we see no reason why the additional loan should not be sanctioned to the complainant when they have already approved. The complainant by her own conduct has miserably failed to abide by the terms and conditions as regards the sanction of the loan of Rs.3 lakhs where payment of monthly installments was defaulted sometimes in 1993. Evidently it was on this count that a confusion and mistrust was created in the mind of the sanctioning authority and for which the additional amount was not considered. But it is also to be borne in mind that though the complainant defaulted in repayment of the monthly installments, the opposite party has every right to initiate action against the complainant before the proper forum and even to the extent of auctioning the properties mortgaged with them if the complainant has failed to repay the loan.

 

                                                 Under the circumstances discussed above, we are off the view that the complainant must clear all the out-standing installments till date and on being cleared as such, the opposite party shall within a period of 30(thirty)days sanction an amount of Rs.2 lakhs being the additional loan to the complainant who shall also undertake to be prompt in repayment of the monthly installments of the total loan sanctioned to her.”

 

                                                 We have given our anxious consideration on the matter. We have also given thought over the grave hardship of the complainant. In our considered opinion it can only be left to the wisdom of the parties to arrive at an amicable settlement. So far this forum is considered we can only go by the laws of the land. We do not find any deficiency of service on the part of the respondent bank requiring an interference from our end. The bank is required to follow its own accepted norms of banking practice and prudence. We therefore do not find any infirmity in the action of the respondent bank. We are also of the view that the learned District Forum ought not to have issued the conditional direction to the bank to sanction an additional amount of Rs.2 lakhs after clearing of the monthly installments on a matter covered by the contractual stipulation. Web accordingly set aside that part of the direction of the learned District Forum and thus allow the Consumer Appeal No.7(M) of 1995.

 

                                                 In view of the reasons stated above we dismiss the Consumer Appeal No.6(M) of 1995 and allow the appeal of the bank.