Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/363/2012

Indu - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch manager, Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Rajan Bhatia

10 Jun 2016

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM YAMUNA NAGAR JAGADHRI

 

                                                                                    Complaint No. 363 of 2012.

                                                                                    Date of Institution: 09.04.2012

                                                                                    Date of Decision:10.06.2016

Indu aged about 38 years wife of Sh. Bhupinder R/o H. No. C-5/764-D, Basant Nagar, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                 

                                                                                                                           ..Complainant

                 Versus

 

The Branch Manager, Bank of India, Fountain Chowk Branch, Yamuna Nagar.

 

                                                                                                                           ..Respondent.

Before: SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG …………….    PRESIDENT

            SH. S.C. SHARMA  …………………………MEMBER  

 

Present: Sh. Rajan Bhatia, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

              Sh. P.K.Kashyap, Advocate, counsel for respondent.

 

ORDER   

1.                     The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant was in need of financial assistance to repair and renovate her house and so being the customer of the respondent (hereinafter referred as OP Bank) vide account No. 672510100008553, she approached the OP Bank in the month of February 2012 alongwith all documents of the property against which she wants to get the said financial assistance. After perusal and verifying the relevant documents of the property, the official of the OP Bank assured the complainant that she is able to get the loan facility and for this purpose she has to complete all the requisite formalities. The official of the Op Bank asked the complainant to get prepare the search report of the property in question from the empanelled Advocate and also to get prepare valuation report from the empanel valuer Er. Vaibhav Garg, so as per direction of the Op Bank the complainant got prepared the said reports and spent near about Rs. 18,000/- on preparation of loan file. It has been further stated that she is indigent person and she has spent this huge amount just on the assurance of the Op Bank and further spent valuable time of two months for getting this loan facility. At the last stage when the loan was passed the official of the Op Bank demanded gratification from the complainant but the complainant was not in a position to pay the same, so the loan amount was not disbursed to the complainant. On this, complainant served a legal notice and requested to pay the loan amount or to make the payment of losses and compensation. The same was replied by the OP Bank on 20.03.2012 and admitting therein that borrower has to fulfill the requisite formalities and the said bank is ready to pay the loan as per their terms and conditions. When the complainant again approached the Bank officials they again demanded gratification and said that it is the formalities which is to be fulfilled by the complainant without that they will not pay the loan. On this complainant approached the Deputy Manager Mr. Om Parkash Sharma who openly demanded Rs. 20,000/- as gratification. As such due to this illegal act and negligence complainant has suffered mental agony and physical harassment and financial loss. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OP Bank appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable; complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; no cause of action; complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. The true facts are that the Op Bank is a Nationalized Bank and is governed by the instructions of RBI and its head office. It is admitted that complainant had approached the OP Bank and asked for loan for renovation of her house. After satisfying with the documents the official of the OP Bank told to the complainant that in order to obtain the loan she has to complete formalities i.e. chain of title, valuation report and other formalities only then the loan would be provided to her for which she was agreed and accordingly she got prepared the legal opinion as well as valuation report. It has been further mentioned that as the said loan was for renovation of house, so, complainant was told that this loan would be disbursed to her in installments on furnishing of construction bills, upon which complainant got annoyed and asked the Op Bank that she requires the entire amount at once and when the OP Bank tried to make understood to the complainant then the complainant had taken back the loan papers by stating that she did not require such loan and thereafter she sent a false legal notice which was duly replied and on merit reiterated the stands taken in the preliminary and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as annexure CX and documents such as legal notice dated 6.3.2012 as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of reply of the legal notice as Annexure C-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OP Bank tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Jagdev Sharma Branch Manager as RW/A and closed the evidence on behalf of OP Bank.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very carefully and minutely.

7.                     The only version of the complainant is that despite completing all the formalities and after getting the search/chain of title report from the empanel advocate and valuation report from the empanel engineer, the official of the OP Bank refused to disburse the loan amount to the complainant on the demand of gratification and in this way the complainant has suffered loss of more than rs. 18,000/- on account of valuation report as well as search report. Besides this, the complainant has suffered mental agony, harassment and her valuable time.

8.                     On the other hand, counsel for the Op Bank argued that the said loan was for renovation of house, so, the complainant was told that this loan would be disbursed to her in installments on furnishing of construction bills but the complainant was adamant to get the entire loan in one time and when Op Bank tried to make understood the complainant then the complainant had taken back the loan papers by stating that she did not require such loan. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op bank and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned counsel for the OP Bank referred the case law titled as Jagannath Meher Versus The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Petition No. 98 of 1992 decided on 15.04.1993 by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi.

9.                     After hearing the parties at length and going through the documents, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP Bank as it is admitted case of the Op Bank that after satisfying with the documents, the official of the Op Bank told to the complainant that in order to get loan she has to complete all the formalities i.e. Chain of title, valuation of report and other formalities and accordingly the complainant got prepared the legal opinion as well as valuation report from the empanel advocate and engineer. It is also not the case of the Op Bank that loan was not sanctioned by the sanctioning authority. The only plea of the Op Bank is that complainant was adamant to get the entire loan in one time whereas there was no such guidelines of the RBI Bank to disburse the entire loan in one time without furnishing the construction bills etc. but this plea of the Op Bank is not tenable as no such guidelines issued by the RBI or head office of this Bank has been placed on file by the Op Bank. Even the OP Bank did not bother to place on file sanction letter issued by the sanctioning authority of the bank. Further more for the sake of argument, if we presumed that there was such guidelines issued by the RBI then it was the duty of the OP Bank to disclose the same to the complainant before getting the such reports and sanctioning the loan amount but no such evidence has been filed by the Op Bank to prove that the official of the OP Bank disclosed this fact to the complainant before getting the said reports. So, we are of the considered view that after sanctioning the loan official of the Op Bank cannot impose new condition. Further the Op Bank has not rebutted the version of the complainant that the complainant has not spent Rs. 18000/- as stated by her in his complaint for getting the valuation report as well as search report from the empanel advocate as well as engineer.

                          The second plea of the Ops Bank is that nothing has been charged from the complainant for hiring the services of the Op Bank is also not tenable as the complainant hired the services of the OP Bank by opening  the account beaing No.672510100008553 and further she has  spent huge amount on the direction of the officials of the OP Bank.The law cited by the counsel for the Op Bank is not disputes but not helpful to the facts of the present case.    

                        In the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that the  officials of the Bank reasons best known to them illegally has not disbursed the loan amount to the complainant despite completing all the formalities and sanctioned the loan amount by the sanctioning authority.Hence there is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP Bank.

                        Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the Op Bank to pay a sum of Rs.18000/- to  the complainant on account of expenses incurred by the complainant for getting the search report from the impaneled Advocate as well as valuation report from the engineer.The Op Bank is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment as well as Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses.  Order be complied within 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. However, Higher Authorities of the Bank is at liberty to recover the aforesaid amount from the defaulting officer/officials as per rules after conducting the proper inquiry.Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court.      

Dated: 10.06.2016.

                                                                                    ( ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                      PRESIDENT

 

                                                                      

                                                                                    (  S.C. SHARMA)

                                                                                     MEMBER