O R D E R
Per Smt T. Suneetha, Member:-
The complainant filed this complaint u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act seeking directions on the opposite parties to grant loan and compensation to the complainant.
2. In brief the averments of the complaint are hereunder:
The complainant applied for loan to start cool drinks shop to the 2nd opposite party. The complainant paid Rs.3,000/- towards 10% of beneficiary contribution by way of Demand Draft. On the next day i.e., on 19-02-10 the 2nd opposite party taken the demand draft amount from the Commissioner, Ponnur Municipality and sanctioned loan of Rs.30,000/- out of which 15,000/- subsidy to the complainant. The complainant was allotted to the Indian Bank, Ponnur Branch. The complainant approached the 1st opposite party with sanctioned order bearing No.19/2009-10/BC-D, dated 01-12-09 of 2nd opposite party and had submitted all the required documents demanded by the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party by some pretext or other postponing the matter and gave adamant replies. At last the 1st opposite party asked the complainant to get the quotation from the concerned agency. The complainant submitted the quotation also. But the 1st opposite party did not process the loan. The complainant issued legal notice to the 1st opposite party on 05-05-10 but there is no reply. The complainant also approached ombudsman, Hyderabad on 18-02-11. But there was no use. The complainant spent nearly Rs.20,000/- for getting loan. The proceeding copy issued by the 2nd opposite party bearing No.19/2009-10/BC-D, dated 01-12-09 reveals that Rs.14,950/- subsidy amount and complainant’s 10% share amounting to Rs.3,000/- totaling Rs.17,950/- was deposited in Indian Bank, Kothapet Main Branch, Guntur, with the account No. 413816464. The complainant is the only bread winner for his big family. He had no other source of income except the cool drink shop and so he needs finance to improve his business. Due to the attitude of the 1st opposite party the complainant suffered financially and mentally. Hence the complaint.
3. The following is the version of 1st opposite party in brief:
The 1st opposite party gave its consent to sanction the loan to the complainant when the application was forwarded to this opposite party. The complainant never approached this opposite party directly. Some unknown agents and middlemen approached on behalf of the complainant through whom the Government schemes were misused.
4. The address provided by the complainant was insufficient and the Bank Authorities could not trace the residence while they are making pre-release inspection. The registered letter sent by the 1st opposite party to the complainant calling upon to submit required documents, was returned unserved. The complainant filed complaint against this opposite party before the Ombudsmen wherein the Hon’ble Ombudsmen passed orders dated 23-03-11 to approach the bank directly with supporting documents sought by the Bank to enable the bank to consider the loan of the complainant. Even after direction given the Hon’ble Ombudsmen the complainant did not choose to approach this opposite party and filed this complaint. This complaint is barred by resjudicata.
5. This opposite party is nationalized bank doing its business as per the rules and guidelines of Reserve Bank of India, and sanction of loan is commercial transaction and it is the discretion of bank whether to sanction the loan or not. There is no consumer relationship in between the complainant and this opposite party. Therefore there is no deficiency of service on the part of this opposite party. Without prejudices to the contention of the complainant, this opposite party give its consent, if the complainant is really in need of loan if he approaches with all required credentials, this opposite party will consider the loan as per the bank norms.
6. The approach of middle men, providing incomplete address which is not traceable, issuing of legal notices, filing complaint before Ombudsmen, are all tactics to pressurize the opposite party and are creating a point of suspension that there is no actual need to the complainant and gang of people are trying to get undue benefit in the name of beneficiaries.
7. The following is the version of 2nd opposite party in brief:
The complainant applied financial assistance of Rs.30,000/-. The complainant sent the application along with D.D. of Rs.3,000/- towards beneficiary contribution amount through commissioner, Ponnur Municipality. After receiving the application the 2nd opposite party duly consider the same and sanction the subsidy amount of Rs.15,000/- i.e. 50% on unit costs through office proceedings No.19/2009-10/BC-D dt.01-12-2009. The 2nd opposite party sent the said proceedings letter to 1st opposite party to withdraw the subsidy and beneficiary contribution amount of Rs.17,950/- (duly deducting Rs.50/- as processing charges) from the Main Branch, Indian Bank, Kothapet, Guntur from Bank A/c.No.413816464 and to pay the amount including loan amount to the complainant. The 2nd opposite party deposited the require funds in the main branch of Indian Bank, Kothapet, Guntur. The obligation of 2nd opposite party was discharged in December, 2009. There is no laches on the part of 2nd opposite party and there is no deficiency of service on the part of 2nd opposite party.
8. Both the parties have filed their respective affidavits. Ex.A-1 to A-8 were marked on behalf of the complainant and Exs.B-1 to B-3 were marked on behalf of opposite parties.
9. Now the points that arose for consideration in this complaint are:
1. Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of
service?
2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?
10. POINT NO.1 & 2:- The complainant’s allegation is that the 1st opposite party failed to grant loan inspite of the complainant submitting all the required documents. The 1st opposite party contended that non submission of required documents, middlemen approaching the 1st opposite party instead of the complainant, non tracing of complainant’s address at the time of pre-release inspection created a point of suspicion that there is no actual need to the complainant and a gang of people are trying to get undue benefit in the name of beneficiary.
11. The complainant applied for loan with the opposite parties for setting up of cool drink shop (as per the application form and proceedings copy dated 01-12-09 issued by 2nd opposite party of Ex.A-1).
12. The 2nd opposite party discharged its responsibility by sending the proceedings and amount of Rs.14,950/- (beneficiary contribution Rs.3000/- + backward classes society subsidy Rs.15,000/- - processing charges Rs.50/- = 14,950/-) to the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party required some documents from the complainant through Ex.A-4 dated 13-01-11. The complainant failed to submit those documents. It is obligatory on the part of the borrower to fulfill the requirements raised by the lending authority.
13. The complainant filed complaint with ombudsmen which came out with following direction on 23-03-11.
“The complainant is advised to approach the bank directly with supporting documents sought by the bank to enable them to consider his loan request. The bank is expected to examine the complainant’s loan application together with required supporting documents in accordance with their business parameters and convey their decision to the complainant in writing. The complaint is closed under clause 13(a) of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006 as sanction of a loan is a commercial decision to be taken up by the bank and not a valid ground for complaint under the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006”
The complainant did not file any document to show that he supplied the documents to 1st opposite party after the order of Ombudsmen vide Ex. B-3 dated 23-03-11.
14. All the above, giving of loan or not giving is the discretion of the bank. The following citations are given in support of it.
I). Supreme Court of India (2010 (3), C.P.R. 136 (SC)), in Managing Director, Maharashtra State Financial Corporation and others Vs Sanjay Sankarsa Mamarde held
“Non release of loan occasioned by complainant’s own conduct does not amount to deficiency in service by the Corporation”.
II). In National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, (2011 (3) CPR 520 (NC)) in Central Bank of India Vs Smt.Pushpa Lata held
“A person who himself is negligent cannot attribute deficiency in service to others.”
15. The 2nd opposite party discharged its responsibility by sending the proceedings and amount relating to the loan of the complainant to the 1st opposite party. The Forum cannot find any deficiency of service on the part of 2nd opposite party.
16. In view of the above discussion and citations, the Forum opines that giving of loan is at 1st opposite party’s discretion and the complainant has not submitted the required documents though ordered in Ex.B-3 by Ombudsmen and thereby he is guilty of deficiency.
17. Neither of the opposite parties committed any deficiency of service and hence opposite parties need not compensate the complainant.
18. In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 31st of July, 2012.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For Complainant:
Ex.Nos. |
DATE |
DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS |
A1 |
05-01-09 |
Xerox copy of loan application. |
A2 |
18-05-09 |
Xerox copy of Indian Bank pass book bearing A/c.No.835177559 |
A3 |
05-05-10 |
Legal notice issued by the complainant. |
A4 |
13-01-11 |
Xerox copy of sanction letter. |
A5 |
17-02-11 |
Xerox copy of quotation issued by Mannem Agencies. |
A6 |
28-02-11 |
Xerox copy of letter from Banking Ombudsmen to complainant. |
A7 |
27-12-11 |
Copy of a mpplication under R.T.I. Act by the Mannem Kishore along with reply. |
A8 |
18-03-11 |
Copy of courier receipt. |
For opposite parties: NIL
Ex.Nos. |
DATE |
DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS |
B1 |
13-01-11 |
Letter addressed by the opposite party to the complainant. |
B2 |
|
Xerox copy of returned cover which addressed to the complainant. |
B3 |
23-03-11 |
Copy of order of Banking Ombudsmen in complaint No.2807 filed by the complainant. |
PRESIDENT
