Tripura

StateCommission

A/12/2015

The United Bank of India - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Prabir roy - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. A.Ray Barman, Smt. L.Sarkar

15 Sep 2015

ORDER

 

 

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

TRIPURA

 

 

APPEAL CASE No.A/12/2015

 

The United Bank of India

Represented by the Branch Manager,

Belonia Branch,

Belonia, South Tripura.

                   ….    ….    ….    ….    Appellant.

                   Vs

          Sri Prabir Roy,

          S/O, Renupada Roy,

          Matai, Madhya Para, P.O-Matai,

          P.S-Belonia, Dist. South Tripura.

               ….    ….    ….    ….    Respondent.

 

 

PRESENT :

       

             HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.BAIDYA,

             PRESIDENT,

             STATE COMMISSION

                          

                  MRS. SOBHANA DATTA,

             MEMBER,

               STATE COMMISSION.

 

              MR.NARAYAN CH. SHARMA,

          MEMBER

            STATE COMMISSION.

               

 

For the Appellant      :    Mr.A.Roybarman,Adv & Smt.L.Sarkar,Adv.

          For the respondent   :    Mr.P.Debnath ,Adv & Smt. S.Choudhury,Adv.

                                           

Date of Hearing         :   27.08.2015. 

Date of delivery of Judgment  :

             

J U D G M E N T

 

S.Baidya,J,

            This appeal filed on 06.04.2015 under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act., 1986 by the appellant-United Bank of India, Belonia Branch is directed against the judgment dated 19.01.2015 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (in short District Forum), Gomati District, Udaipur in case No.C.C-12 of 2014 whereby the Ld. District Forum directed the O.P., the appellant-bank herein, to refund the amount of Rs.5,589/- with interest @ 9% p.a. to the complainant immediately with a further direction to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- with interest to the complainant immediately on the ground of causing harassment and mental agony to the complainant on the ground of non-disbursement of sanctioned loan.      

2. The case of the appellant as narrated in the memo of appeal, in brief, is that the respondent Prabir Roy lodged a complaint before the Ld. District Consumer Forum, Gomati District against the appellant-bank seeking compensation stating inter alia that he is a L.D.C. posted at Matai Class-XII School and he applied for availing a home loan to the respondent-bank and submitted all required documents including the certificate of D.D.O. before the respondent-bank and on 22.05.2014 the complainant-respondent was informed by the appellant-bank that as per his prayer an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- has already been sanctioned as loan amount jointly in favour of the complainant and his wife and also asked to deposit the original registered Title Deed and Khatian and his LICI policy before the bank as security and also to sign the necessary papers by himself and by his wife appearing in the bank.                                                
3. It is also alleged that the complainant requested the bank to disburse the loan amount only on the basis of certificate of D.D.O. and refused to deposit any other documents and as such, the appellant-bank ultimately did not disburse the said loan amount, rather an amount of Rs.5,589/- was deducted from him as loan processing charge and thereby being aggrieved, the complainant filed the complaint before the Ld. District Forum seeking compensation for deficiency in service on the part of the appellant-bank.
4. It is also alleged that the appellant-bank as O.P. contested the complaint case by filing written objection stating inter alia that the original loan prayer was submitted by Prabir Roy and his wife Smt. Munna Saha seeking a house loan in the land of Prabir Roy and as per guideline of the bank, the loan was sanctioned in the name of Prabir Roy and co-borrower Munna Saha jointly and as per guideline, some documents required to be submitted by the borrower Prabir Roy as security against the said loan in addition to the certificate of the D.D.O. of the complainant-respondent. It is also alleged that as per joint application, the loan was sanctioned jointly in the name of Prabir Roy and his wife Munna Saha and for disbursement of the loan amount both the borrowers were required to execute some documents and accordingly, the appellant-bank requested the respondent Prabir Roy to deposit his original documents of the land and the original LICI policy before the bank, but the complainant refused to do so and insisted to disburse the loan amount only on the strength of certificate issued by the D.D.O.
5. It is also alleged that as the request of the complainant was against the guideline of the bank, there was no scope to accept the request and accordingly, the loan which was sanctioned in favour of Prabir Roy and his wife Munna Saha was cancelled and as per banking rule, the process fee of Rs.5,589/- was deducted from account of the complainant. It is also alleged that there was no fault or deficiency on the part of the appellant-bank and due to non-co-operation of the complainant, the sanctioned loan was cancelled and therefore, the complaint was not maintainable having no cause of action for filing the complaint. It is also alleged that the Ld. District Forum considering the evidences adduced by both sides passed the impugned judgment on 19.01.2015 and being aggrieved thereby, the appellant-bank has preferred the instant appeal on the grounds that the Ld. Forum did not apply its mind properly and in most whimsically and arbitrary manner disposed of the complaint petition in favour of the complainant, that the Ld. Forum failed to appreciate that when on the basis of joint application of the complainant and his wife the loan sanction file was processed and ultimately, the loan was sanctioned in favour of the complainant and his wife, there is no scope for the complainant to refuse to execute necessary documents jointly, but the Ld. District Forum opined otherwise which is bad in the eye of law, that the Ld. Forum failed to appreciate that due to the refusal to execute the documents jointly by the complainant and his wife, the bank had no alternative, but to cancel the sanction loan, that the Ld. Forum failed to appreciate that as per banking norms and guidelines, an amount of Rs.5589/- was deducted as loan process fee and there was no deficiency on the part of the appellant-bank, that the sanction of loan is exclusive prerogative of the bank who has to comply the procedure and the guideline strictly and there is no scope for the bank to go beyond the guideline, but the observation of the Ld. District Forum appears to be whimsical and as such, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and hence, the appellant-bank has preferred the instant appeal.                

Points for consideration.

6.       The points for consideration are (1) whether the Ld. District Forum was proper, legal and justified in passing the impugned judgment and (2) whether the judgment under challenge in this appeal should be set aside or otherwise as prayed for.     

                       

 

Decision with Reasons.

7.  Both the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity.
8. At the very outset, it is found necessary to mention that although the respondent Sri Prabir Roy who is the complainant in the District Forum appeared through his engaged advocate before this Commission, but ultimately did not turn up at the time of final hearing of the appeal, although sufficient opportunities were given to him to participate in the hearing of the appeal.
9. On our asking, the learned counsel for the appellant-bank has produced the Master Circular of United Housing Loan Scheme (Annexure-A) before us. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent and his wife Smt. Munna Saha jointly applied for a home loan before the UBI, Belonia Branch, South Tripura for an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- and after due enquiry the appellant-bank sanctioned a home loan of Rs.4,50,000/- jointly in favour of complainant-respondent  Sri Prabir Roy and his wife Smt. Munna Saha as a borrower and co-borrower respectively of the said loan. He also submitted that the appellant-bank is under legal obligation to follow the guideline in respect of sanction of a home loan under United Housing Loan Scheme and according to the said guidelines, both the borrowers required to sign some documents and accordingly, the respondent-bank asked the borrower Prabir Roy to execute some documents by himself and by his wife Smt. Munna Saha appearing before the Bank. He also submitted that as per said guidelines, the bank also asked the borrower to produce the original Title Deed of the land, the original khatian and the original LICI policies before the bank as security. He also submitted that the complainant refused to bring his wife before the bank to execute some documents jointly with him and also to produce the original documents mentioned above. He also submitted that when the complainant refused to comply the terms and conditions of sanction loan as per guideline, the appellant-bank had no alternative, but to cancel the sanction loan. He also submitted that on the basis of the joint application of the complainant and his wife, the home loan file was processed and bank had to incur some sort of expenditure in that regard and accordingly, the bank realized that amount from the complainant.   
10. The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the complainant has prayed for issuance of a loan clearance certificate from the appellant-bank, but the matter of issuance of loan clearance certificate arises, if the loan amount is disbursed and subsequently realized through repayment from the complainant as per terms and conditions of the sanction loan. He also submitted that in the instant case, although loan was sanctioned, but it was subsequently cancelled before disbursement due to the non-co-operation of the complainant and as such, the question of issuance of any loan clearance certificate by the appellant-bank does not arise at all. He also submitted that the Ld. District Forum erroneously passed the impugned judgment for refunding the realized process fee and also for making payment of Rs.10,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. on account of alleged harassment and mental agony because of non-disbursement of sanctioned loan immediately to the complainant which cannot be sustained in the eye of law and is liable to be set aside.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant lastly submitted before us that if this Commission thinks fit and proper, an amount of Rs.3,000/- so realized as process fee may be ordered to make refund to the complainant, but the order of the Ld. District Forum concerning making of payment of Rs.10,000/- for alleged harassment and mental agony should be set aside as it points out a finger to the reputation of the appellant-bank.
12. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, the evidences both oral and documentary evidence, the impugned judgment and the memo of appeal. We have also considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant-bank. Going through the same, we find certain admitted facts. Admittedly, an application was filed seeking a home loan for an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- under United Housing Loan Scheme before the appellant-bank, Belonia Branch. It is also admitted fact that only an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- as home loan was sanctioned by the appellant-bank in the joint names of the complainant Prabir Roy and his wife Smt. Munna Saha. It is also admitted fact that the said loan amount of Rs.4,50,000/- so sanctioned has not been disbursed and the sanctioned loan has been cancelled.
13. According to the complainant, he submitted home loan application form as Govt. employee for an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- for the construction of his house and for that he submitted his salary certificate containing the undertaking of the Drawing & Disbursement Officer (D.D.O.) to the effect that the D.D.O. has undertaken to remit the monthly instalment after deducting the same from the salary bill of the complainant Prabir Roy, if he fails to make payment of monthly instalment towards the said loan with a further undertaking to realize the entire loan amount from his terminal benefit in case of his resignation and cessation from service during the pendency of loan to remit the said amount to the bank directly. It is also the case of the complainant that the Branch Manager of United Bank of India, Belonia Branch after returning from the Regional Office of the said bank asked the complainant to get the said loan application signed by his wife as a witness and accordingly, the complainant got the said loan application signed by his wife. It is also the case of the complainant that after the observance of all formalities, the Branch Manager told the complainant that a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- only has been sanctioned as loan amount and also asked him to bring his wife to the bank for getting some documents signed by his wife and also asked to submit original LICI policies, land khatian and the original Regd Title Deed. It is also the case of the complainant that at this the complainant asked the Manager as to why a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- has been sanctioned instead of Rs.6,00,000/- for which he submitted loan application and also as to why his wife would take the responsibility of repayment of such loan when he himself only has applied for loan with the necessary certificates and undertaking of the D.D.O. assuring the repayment of the loan amount and also as to why in the face of submission of such certificates and undertaking of the D.D.O. he has been asked to produce the original LICI policies. It is also the case of the complainant that he was told by the Branch Manager that if the conditions are not fulfilled, the loan amount cannot be disbursed to him. It is further case of the complainant that in that circumstance, he refused to follow the terms and conditions of the loan and took back his documents being compelled to deposit a sum of Rs.5579/- as demanded by the Branch Manager. It is also the case of the complainant that the Branch Manager unnecessarily harassed him.     
14. On the other hand, it is the case of the appellant-bank that the respondent and his wife Smt. Munna Saha jointly applied for home loan and accordingly, a loan amount of Rs.4,50,000/- has been sanctioned with some terms and conditions to be followed by the complainant-borrower and his co-borrower-wife. It is also the case of the appellant-bank that some conditions require to be fulfilled by the borrowers before the disbursement of the loan as per sanction order of loan and pursuant to that sanction order, the complainant was asked to produce his wife before the bank to execute some documents as co-borrower and also to produce original LICI policies, original khatian of the land and the original regd. Title Deed as security before the disbursement of the loan amount. It is also the case of the appellant-bank that as the complainant refused to comply with the terms and conditions of the sanction order of loan, the said loan amount could not be disbursed and ultimately, the sanctioned loan has been cancelled. It is also the case of the respondent-bank that sanction of loan is the prerogative of the bank and following the guidelines the bank is legally entitled to impose certain terms and conditions for securing the smooth repayment of the loan amount by the borrower, but the complainant refused to produce his wife before the bank to execute some documents as co-borrower and also to produce the original LICI policies and under that compelling circumstance, the loan amount could not be disbursed. It is also the case of the respondent-bank that there was no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the bank, but in spite of that, the complainant whimsically and with an ulterior motive, filed the complaint petition under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the Ld. District Forum, Gomati District, Udaipur.
15. In view of the cases and counter-cases of the parties, this Commission has to see how far the cases of the parties are believable and who was at fault at all and also whether the appellant-bank was at all negligent and deficient in service towards the complainant and whether sanctioned loan has been cancelled on account of willful refusal on the part of the complainant.
16. The complainant as P.W.1 stated in his deposition that he has applied for bank loan for an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- before the Branch Manager, United Bank of India, Belonia Branch and after few days, the Branch Manager told him that signature of his wife is necessary as a witness and then paper was supplied to him and he arranged the signature of his wife in his house. This goes to show that the wife of the complainant never appeared for taking loan before the Branch Manager, United Bank of India, Belonia Branch. Going through the cross-examination of P.W.1, we find that the bank never denied this deposition of P.W.1 either in the cross-examination of P.W.1 or in the deposition of the Branch Manager as O.P.W.1. In that circumstance, it would not be out of place to believe and hold that the wife of complainant put her signature on loan application as a witness, but not as a joint applicant.
17. The Branch manager has been examined as O.P.W.1. Going through the cross-examination of O.P.W.1, we find that there are some errors in the construction of the sentences by typing ‘I’ in place of he, ‘me’ in place of him,‘my’ in place of his and ‘him’ in place of me. Going through the cross-examination of O.P.W.1 it transpires that the complainant first submitted individual loan application and after returning from the Regional Office, the Branch Manager asked the complainant to file joint petition. The original loan application is lying with the record of the Ld. District Forum wherefrom, it transpires that in the first page of the loan application only the complainant put his signature. The signature of the wife of the complainant is not appearing there. The first line of the loan application also indicates that the complainant alone has submitted the loan application, because the word ‘we’ has been penned-through. From the declaration as appearing from the last page of the loan application, it also appears that the word ‘we’ has been penned-through, rather it shows that it is the declaration of the complainant alone, although the signature of the wife of the complainant is appearing by the side of signature of applicant No. 2. This also goes to establish that the photograph of the wife of the complainant pinned with the form on the first page and the signature of the wife of the complainant at the end of the last page of the loan application form have been made it clear that initially an individual loan application was submitted and as per asking of the Branch Manager of UBI, Belonia Branch, the photograph and the signature of the wife of the complainant have been added subsequently. Going through the guideline of United Housing Loan Scheme produced by the learned counsel for the appellant-bank, it appears that the primary security is the mortgage of the property to be financed. The complainant in the loan application has assessed the value of the said land at Rs.8,00,000/-. As per report of Sanjoy Deb Roy, the valuer, the value of the said land is at Rs.10,00,000/-. From the report of Mr.Subrata Datta, the advocate conducting the search opined in the certificate that valid mortgage can be created by depositing of the original Title Deed bearing No.710 for the year 2012 concerning the land on which a house was proposed to be constructed. Be that as it may, it goes to show that the value of the land at least would not be less than eight lakhs and the area of the said land is ‘05 acre i.e. 2.5 gandas, although the sanction order of loan discloses wrongly that the area of the land is 0.05 Satak.
18. It has been mentioned that the primary security will be the mortgage of the property to be financed and in case of additional security for a salaried person is nil, if the employer ensures disbursement of salary through salary payment a/c with the bank or remittance of EMI deducted from the salary and attachment of terminal benefit or ensures disbursement of terminal benefit through the financing branch. In the case in hand, we find that the complainant Prabir Roy submitted a salary certificate containing the undertaking of his D.D.O. towards the remittance of monthly instalment to the bank after deducting the same from the monthly salary bill of the complainant. So, it is clear that as per guideline no additional security is necessary in the case of the complainant. From the said guideline, it further appears that there is a provision to the effect that the spouse is to be made co-borrower, wherever possible. It makes it clear that joining of the wife of the complainant as co-borrower, as per the said guideline, is not compulsory, but we find that the respondent-bank asked the complainant to produce the original LICI policies as additional security, but it is not permissible, as per guideline, when the complainant already submitted his salary certificate containing the undertaking of the D.D.O. as mentioned earlier. So, the asking by the bank to the complainant to produce original LICI policies as additional security is totally unjustified and beyond the guideline. It is true that the granting of loan under the United Housing Loan Scheme is the discretionary authority of the bank, but the bank going beyond the guideline cannot ask the complainant legally to produce the original LICI policies as additional security further. So, from this stand point, it is palpable that asking for producing the original LICI policies as per sanction order of loan being beyond the scope of the guideline cannot be sustained as lawful.
19. The complainant all along is found strict in one point and i.e. he applied for loan alone and the land to be mortgaged is also exclusively belong to him and as he submitted certificate containing undertaking of the D.D.O., he rightly pointed out as to why the bank demanded the appearance of his wife before the bank to execute documents undertaking the liability of the said loan also by herself. In this regard, we are of the view that the version of the complainant to the effect that he arranged for the signature of his wife as a witness in the application for loan being asked by the Branch Manager is found believable and in that circumstance, we are also of the view that mere obtaining a signature and attaching the photograph of the wife of the complainant with the said loan form do not establish that the wife of the complainant put her signature as a co-borrower. The complainant nowhere stated that he was not willing to produce the original Regd. Title Deed before the bank and in that circumstance, the claim of the bank for additional security is found quite unjustified one. So, keeping that view in mind, we are of the view that the complainant rightly refused to produce his wife before the bank to execute documents undertaking loan liability and also to produce the original LICI policies as demanded by the bank as per sanction order of loan. Therefore, it is palpable that the joining of the spouse i.e. the wife of the complainant as co-borrower, as per guideline, is not compulsory, rather optional, but the bank is found reluctant in this regard and in spite of request of the complainant, the bank whimsically and arbitrarily did not disburse the loan amount and cancelled the sanctioned loan. So, considering this, it is palpable that the respondent-bank is found negligent and deficient in providing proper service to the complainant by not following the guideline framed under United Housing Loan Scheme.
20. It has been established that due to the erroneous attitude of the bank the complainant could not avail the loan. From the sanction order, it transpires that the bank demanded 0.56% of the loan amount as process charge. Rs.2,809/- as documentation charge and Rs.250/- as CIBIL. In this regard, the case of the complainant is that he has been asked by the Branch Manager to deposit an amount of Rs. 5,579/- for getting back the documents returned from the bank and the bank realized that amount from his account, but going through the item No.12 of the sanction order, we find that there is a handwriting in respect of documentation charges and CIBIL. It means that the entire sanction order is found in typed, but as regards, the documentation charges and CIBIL are in handwriting. In that circumstance, it is palpable that these handwritings have been added subsequently for the purpose of realization of an amount of Rs.5579/- from the complainant in the name of processing charge. When the complainant on account of unjustified conduct of the bank could not avail the sanctioned loan amount, the question of realization of the said amount of Rs.5579/- in the name of processing charge from the complainant is also found unsupportable and unjustified. That being the position, we are of the view that the Ld. District Forum rightly ordered the bank to make refund of the said amount of Rs.5579/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. immediately, although the amount of Rs.5589/- has been wrongly typed in place of 5579/-.
21. It has also been mentioned that the appellant-bank was negligent and deficient in service towards the complainant. It transpires from the record that for the conduct of the appellant-bank the complainant had to suffer harassment and mental agony for not getting the loan amount to construct his dwelling house. It is true that the bank does the business of granting loan to different applicants under United Housing loan Scheme. It is also true that the bank has the right to take adequate measures to secure the smooth repayment of loan amount advanced to the borrower. The filing of the loan application initially by the complainant alone has made it clear that the bank did not ask him at the initial stage before the submission of the loan application that the loan application must be made jointly by the complainant and his wife. The bank also did not disclose to the complainant regarding the question of security and additional security to be kept by the complainant in the bank. It goes to show that the complainant was in the dark as to what are to be done by him for getting the home loan from the bank. It is also, no doubt, a right of the bank to grant or not to grant loan to any applicant, but one thing requires to be done by the bank i.e. the dealing of the bank in this regard must be transparent. So, we find that there was the absence of transparency on the part of the appellant-bank in dealing with the loan matter of the complainant. This also establishes of the fact that the appellant-bank was deficient in providing proper service to the complainant. That being the position, we are also of the view that the Ld. District Forum awarded a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and harassment which cannot be said to be an unreasonable and unjustified one. It further appears that the Ld. District Forum rightly passed the impugned judgment directing the bank to refund the realized amount and the compensation amount with interest @ 9% p.a. immediately to the complainant i.e. from the date of judgment. That being the position, the impugned judgment calls for no interference by this Commission. But we like mention it that the amount of Rs.5589/- as appearing in para-10 of the impugned judgment is to be read as Rs.5579/-. Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and the impugned judgment should be affirmed.                          
22. In the result, the appeal fails. The impugned judgment dated 19.01.2015 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Gomati District, Udaipur in case No.C.C.12/2014 is hereby affirmed. There is no order as to costs.

 

          

              MEMBER                          MEMBER                          PRESIDENT

                    State Commission               State Commission               State Commission

                            Tripura.                               Tripura                                 Tripura