PER:

Nidhi Verma, Member;

1        The present complaint has been received from the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Amritsar by the order of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab, Chandigarh for its disposal.

2        The complainants have filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Consumer Protection Act under Section 12 and 13 against the opposite parties on the allegations that the complainant has approached for one education loan for his son namely Bikramjit Singh son of Amarpal Singh in the month of September/ October, 2016 as the son of the complainant was interested to study abroad. After receiving the offer letter from the concerned university the complainant applied for the loan from the opposite parties after completing the necessary formalities with the opposite party, the opposite party has issued one sanctioned letter dated 8.12.2016 in favour of the complainant. Before issuance of sanctioned letter the opposite party had asked many formalities like legal report, valuation report and had also asked for execution of several documents from the complainant. The complainant had fulfilled all the formalities as the valuation of property was done by Engineer Sh. Rakeesh Anand vide its report dated 29.10.2016 and further legal opinion with regard to the title of the property was given by Smt. Preeti Mahajan, Advocate on 28.10.2016. Earlier the title deed of property was not in the name of complainant and on the asking of panel advocate of the opposite party the complainant had got the title deed executed from his brother. This all was done by the complainant to get the loan. The complainant has spent approximately 30 to 40 thousand rupees in all the formalities and thereafter, the sanctioned letter dated 8.12.2016 was issued by the opposite party.  After receiving the sanctioned letter from the opposite party, the complainant further pursued the other formalities of the concerned university i.e. Melborne Institute of Technology, the said university vide its mail had asked about the status of loan from the opposite party vide mail dated 16.1.2017, the concerned official of the bank acted in a very negligent manner and he has not sent any reply to the mail sent by the Melbourne Institute of Technology and thereafter, due to non reply again the agent of the above said university i.e. Navigators Overseas Solution Pvt. Ltd. had again forwarded the said mail on 23.1.2017 but he concerned official of the bank acted in a very negligent manner firstly he has not responded to that mail for the period of more than nine days and the said mail was replied on 25.1.2017. Even the reply which was sent by the official was against the spirit of sanctioned letter because before getting sanctioned letter from the bank, the complainant had fulfilled all the formalities but the official of the bank had replied the mail by saying that it is only a principle sanctioned letter subject to completion of documents. The reply given by the official of the bank was negative and due to that reply no further correspondence was done by the concerned person with the complainant. As per the mail of the concerned university only the amount of loan and collateral detail was asked but the official of the bank has stated that it is only a principle sanctioned letter which is subject to completion of documents and execution of security mortgage. Only the disbursal was pending and that is also because at that time the seat of the complainant was not granted and the loan which was sanctioned was an educational loan. So, that is the reason the disbursal was still pending.  Otherwise all the formalities were complied with and all the payments were made by the complainant  for the loan. It is also stated by one of the official of the bank that when the concerned university will send you the admission card thereafter, these formalities are to be done and i.e. reason the complainant has not deposited the title deed with the bank. The complainant had done whatever had been instructed by the official but the complainant was shocked and astonished to see the behaviour of the officials. After getting the information of the mail, the complainant further approached the officials of the opposite parties many times and asked about the reply of e-mail dated 25.1.2017 but no proper reply was given. Thereafter, again on the asking of complainant, the officials of the opposite party had sent another e-mail dated 13.2.2017 to the concerned university. But as the time for applying of the course had elapsed. So no further correspondence was done by the officials of the university. Due to the negligence behavior of the opposite party firstly sending the mail late and even the mail dated 25.1.2017 was against the spirit of sanctioned letter and against the record. The son of the complainant had to suffer a lot. One year of the complainant was destroyed due to negligence attitude of the officials of the opposite party which amounts to deficiency in service. Thereafter, again the complainant had sent many letters to the opposite parties and had asked about the reply dated 25.7.2017 which was sent by the officials to the concerned university but no proper reply was given by the officials which amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the officials. the officials of the bank had not given any satisfactory reply that why the negative reply dated 25.1.2017  was given by the officials which amounts to unfair trade practice. The complainants have prayed that the present complaint may be accepted and following reliefs may kindly be awarded in favour of the complainant

(a)     A sum of Rs. 10 Lacs as compensation be awarded on account of harassment and mental torture which has been casued to the complainant on account of negligence and unfair trade practice of the opposite party

(b)     A sum of Rs. 11,000/- may kindly be awarded on account of litigation expenses.

(c)      A sum of Rs. 75,000/- be awarded in favour of complainant which has been borne by the complainant on account of formalities done by the complainant. 

3        After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to Opposite Parties and opposite parties appeared through counsel and filed written version and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not legally maintainable under the law and and the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this short score. The complainants have not come to commission with clean hands and they have suppressed the true and material information from commission and they are not entitled to any relief. The complainants have got no cause of action to file the present complaint against the opposite parties.  The complainants are estopped by their own act and conduct from filing the present complaint. On merits, it was pleaded that the complainants approached the opposite party bank for availing education loan facility and the same was duly sanctioned on 8.12.2016 to the tune of Rs. 20 Lacs. The disbursement of loan was subject to fulfillment of conditions mentioned at point No. 13 of sanction letter itself and the same was duly acknowledged by the complainant. The complainant himself admits that the loan facility was sanctioned vide sanction letter dated 8.12.2016 and as far as completion of formalities is concerned, the same is necessary for sanction of any loan to verify about the property to be mortgaged in the loan account, its value and title verification of the property and also to execute the loan security documents and without completion of such formalities, no loan can be disbursed as per guidelines and norms of the bank and if any title deed is got executed by the complainant to show his title over the property he cannot put burden of same on the opposite party bank that he spent any amount on asking of the opposite party bank as it was open to the complainant to take loan facility from any other bank or institution who sanction and disburse him such a loan facility without completion of the legal requirements required as per norms and guidelines of bank. The plea of the complainant is falsified from the fact that as per his own admission, he approached the bank for sanction of education loan in the month of September/October 2016, whereas the transfer deed got executed by the compliant from his brother was 10.5.2016, as such plea of the complainant that the said transfer deed was got executed on asking of the bank officials is false on the face of it. The bank does not entertain e-mails received from any third party seeking information about the fiancnials of its customer as they are bound by banks policy for not disclosing customers information to any third party without their written/ verbal consent. As and when the bank received the e-mail from the complainant which was received on 24.1.2017 in the morning for sending the confirmation of sanction to the University and accordingly, the opposite party bank as per requirement of complainant, sent the e-mail of confirmation of sanction of loan to the University at the e-mail address given by the complainant i.e. (

4        To prove his case, Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex. C-1, copy of the transfer deed dated 10.5.2016 Ex. C-2, copy of SBI Educational Scheme proposal form Ex. C-3, Copy of the legal report given by Ms. Preeti Mahajan Ex. C-4, Copy of letter dated 16.10.2017 Ex. C–5, copy of postal receipts Ex. C-6 and Ex.  C-7, copy of the letter of officer dated 17.10.2016 Ex. C-8, copy of ledger dated 5.8.2017 Ex. C-9, copy of mail dated 24.1.2017 Ex. C-10, copy of letter dated 25.1.2017 Ex. C-11, copy of the e mail dated 13.2.2017 Ex. C-12, copy of e-mail dated 25.1.2017 Ex. C-13, copy of the bank account statement Ex. C-14, copy of the arrangement letter for term loan under educational scheme Ex. C-15, copy of e-mail dated 16.1.2017 Ex. C-16, copy of e-mail dated 16.1.2017 Ex. C-17, copy of education loan sanction letter Ex. C-18, copy of letter dated 25.8.2017 Ex. C-19, copy of letter dated 21.10.2017 Ex. C-20, copy of letter of confirmation dated 14.2.2017 Ex. C-21 and closed the evidence. On the other hands, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Prabhjot Kaur Bhullar Ex. OP1, copy of education loan sanction letter Ex. OP2, copy of the e mail Ex. OP3 to OP5, copy of the reply to the e-mail Ex. OP6, OP7, copy of the reply to the university dated 13.2.2017 Ex. OP8, copy of the letter sent by Amarpal Singh Ex. OP9 to OP16,. copy of the reply to the letter dated 16.10.2017 by the bank Ex. OP17, copy of the repayment schedule Ex. OP18, copy of account statement Ex. OP19, copy of the arrangement letter Ex. OP20, copy of  proposal seeking deviation Ex. OP21, copy of affidavit given by Bikramjit Singh Ex. OP-22, copy of letter of confirmation of equitable mortgage Ex. OP23, copy of CIBIL report Ex. OP24, copy of Adhar card of Amarpal Singh Ex. OP25 and closed the evidence.

4        We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the complainants and opposite parties and have carefully gone through the record. 

5        In the present complaint the complainant’s son was interested to study abroad and after receiving the offer letter from the concerned university , complainant applied for the educational loan from the OP ,after completing the necessary formalities with the OP, the opposite party has issued one sanctioned letter to complainant on dated 8 December, 2016. After receiving the sanctioned letter from the OP the complainant further pursued the other formalities of the concerned university and as part of the formalities , the university vide it’s mail had asked about the status of loan from the opposite party, on dated 16 January 2017 but the concerned official of the bank has not sent any reply to the mail sent by the Melbourne Institute of Technology and thereafter university again forwarded the said mail on 20 January 2017 and the said mail was replied on 25^th January 2017 even the reply which was sent by the official was against the spirit of sanctioned letter because before getting sanctioned letter from the bank the complainant had fulfilled all the formalities but the official of the bank had replied the mail by saying that “it is only a principal sanctioned letter subject to completion of documents” the reply given by the official of the bank was negative and due to that reply, no further correspondence was done by the concerned university with the complainant. As per the mail of the concerned university only the amount of loan and collateral detail was asked but the official of the bank has stated that it is only a principal sanctioned letter which is subject to completion of document. But the fact remains that only the disbursal was pending. Due to the negligence behaviour of the Op firstly sending the mail late and even the email dated 25^th January 2017 was against the spirit of sanctioned letter and against the record. The one year of the complainant’s son was destroyed due to negligence attitude of the official of the OP which amounts to deficiency in service. OP No.1 stated in their written version that the complainants approach to opposite party bank for availing education loan facility and the same was duly sanctioned on 8^th December 2016 to the tune of ₹20,00,000 . The disbursement of loan was subject to fulfillment of conditions mentioned at point number 13 of sanction letter itself(Ex OP-20) . As far as completion of formality is concerned the same is necessary for sanction of any loan to verify about the property to be mortgaged in the loan account, its value and title verification of the property and also to execute the loan security documents and without completion of such formalities no loan can be disbursed as per guidelines and norms of the bank. Further, regarding e-mail the bank does not entertained email received from any 3^rd party seeking information about the financials of it's customer as they are bound by bank policy for not disclosing customers information to any 3^rd party without their consent. However as and when the bank received the email from the complaint which was received on 24 January 2017 for sending the confirmation of sanction to the university and accordingly the opposite party as per requirement of complainant sent the email of confirmation of sanction of loan to the university on 25^th January 2017. The loan was to be reimbursed after fulfillment of conditions mentioned in sanction letter itself which includes execution of security documents the documents were executed on 13^th February 2017 and immediately on same day that is 13^th Fab 2017 confirmation was sent to the university at their above said email address along with a copy of the same to the complainant. Therefore there is no delay on the part of the bank if the admission is not given to son of the complainant by the university that is not due to any fault or lapse on the part of the bank. In the view of the above discussion and documents placed on the records, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency and negligence on the part of the officials of the OP. They replied the e-mail (Ex OP 5) on 25.01.2017, as the bank does not entertain e-mail received from any third party seeking the information about the financial status of its customer ,when they get the confirmation from the customer they replied the same . Moreover, the facts mentioned in the mail are appropriate and the bank official is not responsible, if no further correspondence was done by the university or concerned person with the complainant. Further , as per “arrangement letter for term loan under education loan scheme “ duly signed by the complainant (Ex OP-20) the disbursement of loan was subject to fulfillment of conditions mentioned at point 13 and same was delayed by the complainant.  Both the parties are bound by the terms and conditions as agreed between them. The Hon'ble State Commission has relied upon the ruling of the five judge bench of the Apex Court in General Assurance Society Ltd. Vs. Chandmull Jain and Anr. AIR 1966 Supreme Court 1644. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case M/s Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd Vs. United India Insurance Co.Ltd & Anr that in a contract of insurance the rights and obligations are governed by the terms of the contract. Terms of contract of insurance have to be strictly construed. No exception can be made on the ground of equity- in construing the terms of a contract of insurance, the words used therein must be given paramount importance and it is not open for the court to add, delete or substitute any word. In this case also contract of insurance between the parties is based on terms and conditions of the policy and must be followed in letter and spirit .

6        The complainant has alleged in the complaint that the opposite party was at fault in responding the e-mail which was asked by university as the reply to e mail was delayed for few days but we are not agree with the complainant because the bank cannot disclose the financial status of every mail to the third party and in this case as and when the complainant asked the opposite party to give the reply to the university, the opposite party immediately sent the response. Further the complainant alleged that reply which was sent by the official of the opposite party was against the spirit of sanctioned letter but we are not agree with the complaint because as the documents were executed on 13.2.2017, the confirmation was sent to the University. No bank institution can sanction the loan without the completing the formalities as such, there is no lapse on the part of the opposite party.  

7        In view of the above discussion, the complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copy of order be supplied by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar.

Announced in Open Commission

20.09.2022