Punjab

Faridkot

CC/16/291

Sushil Kumari - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of Patiala - Opp.Party(s)

Ashu Mittal

13 Jun 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :           291

Date of Institution :     13.10.2016

Date of Decision :       13.06.2017

Sushil Kumari aged 52 years, w/o Pawan Kumar s/o Jai Dev r/o New Cantt Road, Street No. 2 (L), Faridkot.                                                                 .....Complainant

Versus

 

1. State Bank of Patiala, Branch GGS Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot through its Manager.
2. State Bank of Patiala, Main Branch, Faridkot through its Manager.

......OPs

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh Ajit Aggarwal, President,

Sh P Singla, Member.

Present:       Sh Ashu Mittal, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

 Sh Rajneesh Garg, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                         Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops for deficiency in service and for seeking directions to OPs to pay Rs.2,00,000/-as compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to complainant.

2                                                 Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant is a government employee and is having account with OP-1. It is submitted that in year 2007, complainant took house loan worth Rs. 4 lacs from OP-2 and in year 2012, loan account of complainant was transferred with Op-1 by OP-2.  On 15.12.2015, complainant applied for extension of loan for Rs. 8 lacs for repair and renovation of her house with OP-1 and completed all formalities as prescribed by OP-1 and spent about Rs.2500/- for this purpose. OP-1 promised to complete the process of extension of loan to complainant within 15 days, but despite repeated visits and requests of complainant, they kept lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other. Thereafter, complainant approached the higher authority of Ops namely Gurmeet Kaur, but that also bore no fruit. In August 2016, OP-1 told complainant that her loan and loan file for extension of loan has been transferred with OP-2 and therefore, she should approach OP-2. As per complainant, her account and her loan file for extension of loan is transferred with OP-2 without her consent. Complainant immediately approached OP-2 and they assured that process would be completed within 7 days, but this time again they kept putting off the complainant. Higher Authority of Ops Gurmeet Kaur assured complainant that she would soon get the letter for extension of loan, but all in vain. In last week of September, 2016, the OP-2 declined the application of complainant for extension of loan without disclosing any reason. Complainant again approached Ops to know the reason for declining the extension of loan to her, but they did not give any satisfactory reply. All this has caused great harassment and mental torture to complainant and it amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Complainant has also prayed for compensation and litigation expenses. Hence, the complaint.

3                                                       Ld Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 18.10.2016, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                                      On receipt of the notice, OPs filed written statement taking preliminary objections that this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the present complaint and moreover, complainant is not the consumer of Ops as they have not received any consideration from complainant. however, on merits they have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that there is no deficiency in service. It is denied that loan account of complainant was transferred with OP-1 by OP-2 in 2012, rather same was transferred in the month of February, 2015 and it is also denied that complainant applied for extension of loan in December, 2015, rather she applied for same on 21.11.2015 and no amount of Rs.2500/-was spent by complainant. Ops never gave any assurance for sanctioning of loan within 25 days, but they informed complainant that as her husband is employee of Ops, therefore, matter would be referred to Regional Officer and it is on discretion of Ops to sanction or not to sanction the extension of loan.  Answering Ops never assured any borrower regarding sanctioning of extension of loan as it is completely on discretion of Ops. Ops referred the loan application of complainant to Regional Office, Bathinda for approval. The loan account of complainant was transferred to Main Branch from GGS Branch on the instructions and directions of Regional Office, Bathinda and no other person has any role in it and no consent of complainant is required for this purpose. However, complainant was duly informed that her application has been referred to Controlling Office and same was declined by Regional Office, Bathinda being its Controlling Officer as it is on discretion of bank to grant or not to grant the extension of loan. It is further averred that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of answering OPs. All other allegations and the allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint may be dismissed with costs against the answering opposite party.

5                                                         Parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and then, closed his evidence.

6                                        In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Counsel for OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Govind Gopal Gupta, Branch Manager as Ex. OP-1 and document Ex OP-2 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                         We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully perused the affidavits & documents placed on the file by parties.

8                                          Ld Counsel for complainant argued that complainant is a government employee and is having account with OP-1. In year 2007, complainant took house loan worth Rs. 4 lacs from OP-2 and in year 2012, loan account of complainant was transferred with Op-1 by OP-2. On 15.12.2015, complainant applied for extension of loan for Rs. 8 lacs for repair and renovation of her house with OP-1 and completed all formalities as prescribed by OP-1 and spent about Rs.2500/- for this purpose. OP-1 promised to complete the process of extension of loan within 15 days, but despite repeated visits and requests of complainant, they kept lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other. Thereafter, complainant approached the higher authority of Ops namely Gurmeet Kaur, but that also bore no fruit. In August 2016, OP-1 told complainant that her loan and loan file for extension of loan has been transferred with OP-2 and therefore, she should approach OP-2. As per complainant, her account and her loan file for extension of loan is transferred with OP-2 without her consent. Complainant immediately approached OP-2 and they assured to complete the process within 7 days, but this time again they kept putting off the complainant. Higher Authority of Ops Gurmeet Kaur assured complainant that she would soon get the letter for extension of loan, but all in vain. In last week of September, 2016, the OP-2 declined the application of complainant for extension of loan without disclosing any reason. Complainant again approached Ops to know the reason for declining the extension of loan to her, but they did not give any satisfactory reply. Action of Ops in not granting her extension of loan amounts to deficiency in service and has caused harassment to her. She has prayed for accepting the present complaint.

9                                      To controvert the arguments of complainant counsel, ld counsel for OPs argued that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs and asserted that this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the present complaint and even complainant is not their consumer as they have not received any consideration from her. It is denied that loan account of complainant was transferred with OP-1 by OP-2 in 2012, rather the same was transferred in the month of February, 2015 and it is also denied that complainant applied for extension of loan in December, 2015, rather she applied for same on 21.11.2015 and no amount of Rs.2,500/-was spent by complainant. Ops never gave any assurance for sanctioning of loan within 25 days, but they informed complainant that as her husband is employee of Ops, therefore, matter would be referred to Regional Officer and it is on discretion of Ops to sanction or not to sanction the extension of loan. Answering Ops never assured any borrower regarding sanctioning of extension of loan as it is completely on discretion of Ops. Ops referred the loan application of complainant to Regional Office, Bathinda for approval. The loan account of complainant was transferred to Main Branch from GGS Branch on the instructions and directions of Regional Office, Bathinda and no other person has any role in it and no consent of complainant is required for this purpose. However, complainant was duly informed that her application has been referred to Controlling Office and same was declined by Regional Office, Bathinda being its Controlling Officer as it is on discretion of bank to grant or not to grant the extension of loan. It is further averred that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

10                                        The case of complainant is that she is having loan account with OP-2 and her loan account was transferred with OP-1 by OP-2. On 15.12.2015, she applied for extension of loan to the tune of Rs 8 lacs for the purpose of renovation of her house with OP-1 and completed all formalities and also spent Rs.2500/-, but they did not sanction loan and kept lingering on the matter.  In August 2016, OP-1 told that they transferred the loan account of complainant with OP-2 and she should approach OP-2. On it she approached OP-2 but despite repeated requests they kept putting off the complainant on one pretext or the other and in September, 2016, OP-2 finally refused to sanction the extension of loan to complainant without giving any reason. Grievance of complainant is that Ops has cause undue delay in processing the sanctioning of loan and declined her loan application without any cogent reason, which amounts to deficiency in service. In reply, Ops have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that there is no delay on the part of Ops as complainant applied with OP-2 for extension of loan in August 2016 and same was declined by OP-2 vide letter dated 15.09.2016 and it was duly intimated to complainant vide letter dt 15.09.2016 Ex OP-2. Ops argued that complainant took house loan from OP-2 branch which was later on transferred with OP-1 branch and in February, 2015 loan account of complainant was transferred from OP-1 branch to OP-2 branch and it was in the knowledge of complainant. Complainant applied for enhancement of loan with OP-1 branch in December, 2015 whereas her account was already transferred from Op-1 branch to OP-2 branch in February 2015, which was well within her knowledge. She should have applied for extension of loan with OP-2 branch where her account exist and no in branch of OP-1. Admittedly, on the instructions of OP-1 in August 2016, she applied for extension of loan with OP-2 and OP-2 processed her application as per rules of the bank and sent the same to Regional Office, Bathinda for approval. It is the sole discretion of Bank to grant loan or not to grant any person the enhancement of loan. Only by applying for loan can not be treated that loan is sanctioned. The Bank have to sanction the laon to a person as per their rules. As complainant applied for enhancement of loan in August/2016 and after due application of mind, the Regional Office, Bathinda refused to enhance the loan of complainant in September, 2016 and it was duly informed to her vide letter dated 15.09.2016. copy of the same is Ex OP-2. There is no delay in processing. Application of complainant was processed well within time. Ops duly submitted that it is on discretion of Ops to grant or not to grant the sanction for extension of loan. And moreover, complainant applied for extension of loan with OP-2 in August, 2016 and her application was declined in September, 2016 and thus, there is no inordinate delay in this process. Ops are not bound to sanction every loan application, rather it is their discretionary power. Complainant cannot force or pressurise Ops to approve her loan application.

11                     We have carefully gone through the case and from the perusal of evidence produced by parties, it is observed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops and therefore, complaint in hand is hereby dismissed being without any merits. However, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, there are no orders as to costs. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of costs as per law. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 13.06.2017

Member                          President                        (P Singla)                       (Ajit Aggarwal)