DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 167 of 13.5.2019

                                      Decided on:    13.8.2021

Jagtar Singh CA Jagtar Singh aged 52 years s/o Sh.Joginder Singh R/o House No.1055,Phase-2, Urban Estate, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

State Bank of India, Sheran Wala Gate Branch (Education Loan Branch) Patiala through its Manager.

                                                                   …………Opposite Party

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member    

ARGUED BY

                                       Sh.Jagtar Singh, complainant in person.

                                      Sh.Paramjit Singh Mann, counsel for OP.

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Jagtar Singh  (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against  State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s),under the Consumer Protection Act(for short the Act).
2. The brief facts of the case  are that for the Higher study of her daughter Amanjot Kaur, who has to go to Australia for the same, the complainant approached the OP for obtaining study loan and after receiving complete information of the family of the complainant, the OP agreed to give study loan to the complainant and told the complainant to fulfill the formalities and accordingly Amanjot Kaur daughter of the complainant applied for higher studies in Australia and obtained offer letter dated 5.9.2018 from Sothern Cross University , Melbourne. It is further averred that on the instruction of the OP the complainant again applied and received new offer letter dated 29.11.2018 and also gave details of course for sanctioning of loan. The complainant also obtained valuation report of his house from Er.S.N.Bhardwaj,panel valuer and paid Rs.4000/- in this regard. The complainant also submitted income tax returns, salary slip and other required documents. It is averred that the OP also asked him to obtain legal opinion from their panel Advocate Sh.Yogesh Rai Mangla and he paid Rs.3500/- as fee of advocate. The complainant was also directed to purchase stamp papers of Rs.2000/- and he did so. It is averred that after completion of documentation, the complainant visited the office of the OP many times but they rejected the proposal of sanctioning the education loan for higher studies to the daughter of the complainant vide letter dated 11.12.2018 .Thereafter the complainant applied the loan from Canara Bank and thereafter his daughter went abroad for the course to be started on 22^nd April to 28^th June,2019 but she could not appeared the course to be started on 12^th November,2018 and she suffered loss of her study, which also caused lot of mental agony and harassment to the complainant and his daughter. There is thus deficiency in service on the part of the OP.Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving direction to the OP to pay Rs.9500/- i.e. Rs.4000/- paid for valuation report, Rs.3500/- for legal opinion and Rs.2000/- for stamp papers, and also to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment.
3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OP who appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply having raised preliminary objections that the complainant is not a consumer under the Act; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint as he has not made any application for raising the loan from the OP.
4. On merits, it is pleaded that the complainant neither paid any consideration for hiring the services of the OP nor promised to pay such consideration under any system of deferred payment. It is further pleaded that the complainant merely offered to furnish his personal guarantee to secure the loan applied by his daughter Amanjot Kaur  and her mother joined as co borrower and on inquiry by the loan processing officers, the loan applicant Amanjot Kaur refused to furnish the details of employer of the complainant whose guarantee was purposed by the applicant. It is further averred that on coming to know that the complainant whose guarantee is to be obtain to secure the loan is under suspension and after receiving information regarding conviction of complainant, discussed the case with the Law officer of the Bank who advised that it is not safe to accept the guarantee of such person who has been convicted in a case registered under Prevention of Corruption Act and against which an appeal is pending in the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. It is denied that there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. After denying all other averments, the OP has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
5. In support of the complaint, the complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C8 and closed the evidence.
6. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Gaurav Kumar Khare, AGM SBI RACPC, The Mall, Patiala alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP5 and has closed the evidence.
7. We have heard the complainant, the ld. counsel for the OP and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
8. The complainant has argued that with regard to the higher study of his daughter he approached the OP for loan and he has paid Rs.9500/- i.e. Rs.4000/- , Rs.3500/- as chargeable for obtaining loan and he has also purchased stamp papers of Rs.2000/- but the loan was rejected illegally by the OP without stating any reason. The complainant further argued that he also obtained legal opinion of Yogesh Rai Mangla, Advocate. He has further argued that he has suffered loss as he has to take loan from another bank and also the admission of his daughter was being delayed. The complainant further argued that the amount which he spent on the documents be refunded alongwith interest from the OP.
9. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP has argued that complainant has no locus standi to file this complaint as the loan was applied by his daughter, so as per law his daughter can only file the case. The ld. counsel further argued that even Jagtar Singh is not attorney of his daughter Amanjot Kaur.The ld. counsel further argued that it is purely upon the bank to see the documents and after that have to decide if loan can be given or not and no complaint can be filed against them so the complaint be dismissed.
10. To prove this case Jagtar Singh has tendered his affidavit,Ex.CA and he has deposed as per his complaint.In his affidavit he has deposed that Amanjot Kaur is his real daughter and she has applied for loan for higher study. But this complaint was not filed by Amajot Kaur nor complainant has filed any attorney from Amanjot Kaur for filing of this complaint. So Jagtar Singh has no locus standi to file this complaint on behalf of his daughter who was not minor at that time. He has tendered Application cum appraisal form Ex.C1, Ex.C2 is  the offer letter from Southern Cross University,Ex.C3 is another offer letter from Southern Cross University, Ex.C4 is letter of offer for International Student ,Ex.C5 is certificate of S.N.Bhardwaj,Valuer sent to State Bank of India, The Mall,Patiala.Ex.C6 is report of investigator of Sh.Yogesh Rai Mangla,Advocate,Ex.C7 are the stamp paper of Rs.2000/-.
11. On the other hand Sh.Gaurav Kumar Khare, Assistant General Manager has tendered his affidavit, Ex.OPA and he has deposed as per the written reply. In the affidavit in para No.2 he has deposed that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint as he has not made any application for raising loan and it was his daughter who had applied for the loan.The OP has also tendered the  copy of order of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana,Ex.OP1, Ex.OP2 is the document of State Bank of India,Ex.OP3 is letter sent to Manager (Law) SBOI, Patiala,,Ex.OP4 is another letter, Ex.OP5 is also letter, Ex.OP6 is judgment  vide which the present complainant was convicted  under Section 7 read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 on 9.10.2009 and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs.2500/. The OP has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in the case titled as Somashekhar G. Vs. ICICI Bank and others 2013(3) CPJ 577, M/s Sree Kanaka Durga Hatcheries Pvt.Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India 2002(3) CLT 481, Ram Kirpal Bhargava Vs. Union Bank of India and Ors. 1992(2) CPJ 429.
12. The complainant has filed this complaint on the allegations that his daughter Amanjot Kaur has to go to abroad for higher study. He applied for loan and completed all the necessary formalities and has spent Rs.9500/- i.e. Rs.4000/-, Rs.3500/- and Rs.2000/- for sanctioning the loan but his loan was rejected by the bank.
13. The present complaint has not been filed by Amanjot Kaur and complainant is not her attorney. He has only offered his guarantee to secure education loan and a guarantor who offers his/her guarantee at the request of a person who intends to raise loan is not entitled to any relief by alleging deficiency in service. Moreover, it is the prerogative of the bank to advance loan or not and this fact has been decided by the various judgment cited by the OP as referred above, wherein it has been held that it is prerogative of bank to advance loan or not  and to advance loan the bank has to satisfy itself whether such an amount of loan should be given to a genuine person or not. It has also  been held by the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Somashekhar G Vs. ICICI Bank and others (supra) that it is not understood as to how the complainant is a consumer as the loan has yet not been sanctioned. Therefore, the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ as defined under the Act. There is no receipt, which can show that the complainant has spent Rs.9500/- for obtaining documents.
14. So due to our above discussion, it is totally prerogative of the bank to grant the loan or not and the person who has not even applied for loan and is merely a guarantor  has no locus standi to file the complaint and the present complaint is dismissed accordingly. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:13.8.2021.      

                                   Vinod Kumar Gulati                 Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                              Member                                      President