Sri M.C.DEVAKUMAR,

      Member

1.  The Complainant Sri. Siddalingappa.S has filed the complaint Under section 12 of the CP Act 1986, against the opposite parties for the deficiency in service, seeking compensation of Rs. 60,000/- towards the negligence and callousness and Rs. 10,000/-towards cost of the proceedings and Rs. 15,00,000/-towards the harassment and mental agony suffered by him and his family.

2.  The complainant submitted that, he was working in a Government of India undertaking company and was due for retirement on 31.03.2021. He had availed housing loan from M/s Bajaj Finserve. The rate of interest was 9% in the beginning and enhanced to 10% when the complainant sought for additional loan.

3. As on 01.01.2018, the outstanding loan amount due to M/s Bajaj Finserve was Rs. 19,50.000/-. In the meantime an executive of opposite party bank had offered to take over the housing loan at interest rate of 8.35% only. It is informed to the opposite party bank executive that, M/s Bajaj Finserve have already scrutinized all the relevant documents thoroughly, as such, requested them to process the loan sanction without delay. But the opposite party executive has once again collected all the relevant documents and had agreed to sanction further top up loan of Rs. 3,50,000/- within 15 days without insisting for any insurance and processing charges. Thus, applied for a loan of Rs.23,00,000/.

4.  The said loan of Rs. 23,00,000/- was split into two different loans (i.e. Rs. 12,00,000/- and Rs. 11,00,000/-) and issued two letter of sanction on 01.02.2018, and the executive had collected Rs. 118/- towards loan processing fee through cheque by  promising to disburse the loan amount at the earliest.

5.  On 15.03.2018 a message was received from opposite party bank to furnish another set of documents to be submitted to their legal department at Bangalore and learnt that the documents were not submitted to the legal department by the opposite party bank till date.

6. On 16.04.2018, the opposite party bank at Saraswathipuram Branch, had called for affixing signature on certain documents and also collected 13 blank cheques with authorization letter and assured to disburse the loan within two days. However, on collection of another sum of Rs. 118/- and after 15 days  of affixing signature also the loan amount was not disbursed. On 02.05.2018 the opposite party executive requested for some more documents. Due to inordinate delay in processing loan, simply by collecting documents, the opportunity to approach other bank or financial institutions is deprived.

7.  After the lapse of five months of not disbursing the loan, he suffered mental agony. A legal notice was caused on 30.05.2018 calling upon the opposite parties to make good the loss due to negligence and to compensate for the harassment. The opposite parties replied notice untenably on 15.06.2018. Hence filed the complaint, seeking reliefs.

8.  The opposite parties filed their common version through their counsel and denied the allegation of deficiency in service. It is submitted that, they being a banking company, function in-accordance with the banking Regulations Act, 1949. The complainant had approached them on 24.01.2018 seeking financial assistance by mortgaging his immovable property and assured to abide by the terms and conditions of credit facility. It is clearly informed that, post sanction of the loan, complainant had to furnish all documents relating to his income proof and immovable property. At his request only the bank have issued the sanction letter on 01.02.2018, subject to fulfill the requisite formalities. However the complainant failed to provide all the documents as per check list, till end of February 2018. The bank valuator observed that, there is deviation in construction of the house and after clarification, the legal report was submitted during first week of April 2018. However, the disbursement of loan amount was subject to the execution of necessary documents. Thereby the allegation of delay is denied and on failure to complete the necessary obligations, the bank had denied to disburse the loan amount. As such, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.    Both parties have lead their evidence by filing affidavit along with several documents. Both parties filed written arguments. Heard the oral arguments of complainant counsel only. Perusing the material on record, matter posted for orders.

10.    The points that would arise for our consideration are as
11. 1. Whether the complainant established the deficiency in service by the opposite party bank for not disbursing the loan immediately and thereby he is entitled for the reliefs?
    2. What order? 

11. Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

      Point No.1:- In the Negative

      Point No.2:- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

12.     Point No.1:- The complainant counsel vehemently argued that, he has not approached the opposite party bank for financial assistance on 24.01.2018, in turn the opposite party bank officers visited M/s BEML factory at Mysore to market their products and had approached him with an assurance of extending financial assistance. Further denied that, the letter of sanction was issued to him at his request, by the opposite party bank, on 01.02.2018. The complainant argued that, he had availed housing loan initially from M/s Canara Bank on 08.05.2003 and was aware of the formalities for issue of loan by banks.

13.  The said loan was taken over to SBI on 07.06.2003 and again taken over by M/s LIC housing Finance Ltd., on 28.04.2012. Once again the loan was taken over by M/s Bajaj Finserve on 31.12.2014. The requisite documents were thoroughly examined by five reputed financial institutions before presenting the documents to the opposite party bank for scrutiny and to sanction loan.

14.  Thereby the complainant counsel argued that, the complainant had not deviated at any stage of construction of his house. Further, the opposite party would not have collected the process fee of Rs. 118/- and 13 blank cheques apart from obtaining signature of himself and his spouse on 16.04.2018, by a assuring that, the loan amount would be disbursed soon. The complainant has dealt with opposite party bank as their rate of interest was lower and on the assurance to top up the loan. As such, the inordinate delay in disbursement of loan amount attributed to deficiency in service.

15. The opposite party contended that, the present dispute was arisen out of contractual relationship and does not fall within purview of the CP Act. As such, there is no deficiency in service and mental agony caused to the complainant. The letter of sanction was issued only at the request of the complainant on 01.02.2018 and also subject to certain conditions. The complainant failed to provide all the documents as per check list, which lead to provide a legal security report from the legal authority. The opposite party contended that, they have not deliberately denied and were willing to disburse the loan, they being custodian of public money, cannot disburse the loan amount in fancy manner. The complainant has utterly failed to meet the legal formalities, to disburse the loan, as such, the complainant is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.

16.  On perusal of the material on record, it is true that, the complainant was intended to borrow loan from opposite party bank to meet his financial assistance as the opposite party had offered to sanction the loan and top up the loan at lower rate of interest. Initially the complainant had provided certain documents relating to his immovable property, as the same were not legible, the legal department of opposite party requested for additional set of legible copies of the documents. As there is violation in construction of the house and to receive legal report, and upon receipt of the report, the complainant and his spouse was called upon to execute the loan documents. However the complainant has come up with this complaint seeking reliefs from the opposite party bank, alleging inordinate delay in disbursement of loan as deficiency in service, which is not acceptable. As such, the Commission finds that, there is no deficiency in service and hence point no.1 is answered in the negative.  

17.     Point no.2:- With the above observations, the complaint filed by Sri Siddalingappa.S deserves to be dismissed. Hence the following ;

                                                                      :: ORDER ::

1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.
2. Furnish the copy of order to the complainant at free of cost.

     (Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, corrected by us and then pronounced in open Forum on this the    20^th August, 2020)