Date of filing : 07-05-2011
Date of order : 13-09-2012
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.111/2011
Dated this, the 13th day of September 2012
PRESENT
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
SMT. K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
Kunhumon.K.P, } Complainant
S/o.K.J.Poulose, Kothakulam House,
Mukkuzhi, Thayannur.Po,
Hosdurg Taluk
(Adv.P.Appukuttan, Hosdurg)
1. The Corporation Bank, }Opposite parties
Kanhangad Branch Rep.by its Senior Manager,
Kanhangad.
2. Sreedharan.K.P, Senior Manager,
Corporation Bank, Sundar Ratha Complex,
Kanhangad.
(Ops 1 &2. Narayanan.B, Hosdurg)
O R D E R
SMT.P.RAMADEVI, MEMBER
The facts of the complaint in brief is as follows:
That the complainant is working as a Supervisor in Chembarathi Bar. He approached the second opposite party for availing a house loan. After verifying the relevant documents submitted by the complainant along with the loan application the 2nd opposite party agreed to sanction the loan. The opposite party told the complainant that the first instalment of the loan will be paid only after completion of the foundation work of the house by the complainant. Believing the words of the 2nd opposite party the complainant completed the foundation work of the house by availing loan from private money lenders for high rate of interest. Thereafter he approached the 2nd opposite party for obtaining the 1st instalment. But the opposite party refused to grand loan without any reason. Hence this complaint is filed alleging deficiency in service against opposite parties.
2. On receipt of notice from this Forum the opposite parties appeared through counsel and filed the version.
In the version the opposite parties denied the allegations made in the complaint against opposite parties and further stated that before granting loan the bank must satisfy the repaying capacity of the borrower. The complainant applied for a loan of `9 lakhs. The total cost of his proposed house is `12 lakhs. The complainant’s monthly income is only `5000/- and he is eligible to get only an amount of `2 lakhs as loan. Moreover, while granting loan the bank must ensure that what is the source of income of the applicant for the construction of the entire house. That means the applicant must prove the source of income to complete the entire construction work. That means the complainant has to show the source of the difference of the loan amount and the actual cost of construction. Here the complainant failed to show the other source of income for completing the entire building. Secondly he committed fraud before the bank by providing a forged income certificate showing `10,000/- as his monthly income. Thirdly the property offered as security is outside the permitted area of their baking operation. Hence according to the opposite parties the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3. After considering the facts of the case the following issues raised for consideration.
1. whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. If so, what is the order of relief and costs?
4. In this case the complainant is examined as PW1 and Exts A1 to A5 marked and 2nd opposite party is examined as DW1, no documents marked. Complainant’s counsel filed argument notes and heard the counsel for opposite parties and documents perused.
5. Here the specific case of the complainant is that the opposite parties refused to grant loan after complying all the requirement relevant for granting the loan. Now we will consider what are requirements for granting the loan.
6. First of all the applicant has to furnish the relevant documents inrespect of the property offered as security. Here admittedly the complainant produced the relevant documents relating to his property offered as security. But the opposite parties have a case that the complainant misrepresented before the bank that the property offered as security is situates within the permitted area of their banking operation. Only after visiting the site the opposite party came to know that the property is situates outside the area of their banking operation. According to opposite parties this is one of the ground for rejecting the loan. But we will not consider the above fact is a genuine ground for rejecting the loan. Even if the property is situates outside the permissive area of the bank, the bank can grand loan after obtaining sanction from the head office.
7. The second requirement is the bank must ensure the repaying capacity of the borrower. To prove that aspect the complainant produced salary certificate before the bank showing his monthly salary is `10,000/-. But on enquiry the opposite parties came to know that complainant is getting only `5000/- as monthly income and inorder to mislead the bank the complainant obtained a concocted document showing `10,000/- as his monthly salary and the same is marked as Ext.A2. While cross-examining the complainant by the counsel for opposite parties the complainant deposed that his actual salary is `5000/- and the same is shown in his EPF slip. Admittedly his salary is `5000/-. But he was trying to mislead the bank by producing Ext.A2. Apart from Ext.A2 salary certificate. the complainant furnished copy of RC book of his autorikshaw to prove his other sources of income. But it is deposed by PW1, the complainant before the Forum that the above said autorikshaw is hypothecated to Indus Ind Bank and he has to pay `2000/- per month towards the vehicle loan. He stated before the bank that he has got agricultural income. To prove that aspect he has not furnished any document. On going through the above facts we are of the opinion that the contention of the bank is true and correct because if the bank granted a loan of `9,00,000/- the complainant has to pay more than `10,000/- as monthly instalments. As per law the portion of salary set apart for monthly instalment is 40% of the net salary. Here the complainant can pay only `2000/- per month and the bank can grand only 2 lakhs as loan. Moreover, before granting loan of `2,00,000/- for construction of a home the bank must ensure that what are the sources of income of the borrower to construct the home. That means while granting loan of `2 lakhs for a proposed house having estimated cost of `12 lakhs the bank must ensure that how the borrower collect the balance amount of `10 lakhs. In this case the complainant failed to prove that how he collect the balance amount inorder to complete the proposed house. Considering the above facts we are of the opinion that the act of the opposite parties are not illegal or there is no unfair trade practice in it. They acted as per the banking rules and regulations. We cannot found any deficiency in their service. The rejection of loan application is justifiable.
Therefore the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts
A1. 24-03-2011. Copy of lawyer notice.
A2. 30-11-2010 copy of Salary Certificate of the complainant issued by Hotel
Chembarathy Garden Kuttikol.Po. Taliparamba.
A3.Photocopy of proper document
A4.Photocopy of tax receipt issued by Belur Village officer.
A5. Photocopy of RC of the complainant Reg.No.KL-60-B-6449
PW1. Kunhumon.K.P.
DW1.Sreedharan.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/ Forwarded by Order
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
