Hon’ble Mr. Haradhan Mukhopadhyay, President.
The financial dispute between the Complainant and Defendant dragged the Complainant to lodge the present case in the form of a complaint. The basic fact is summarised to the extent that the Complainant Sri Santosh Roy is a businessmen and runs his business for livelihood. The OP IDBI bank is a financial institution. The Complainant wanted to borrow some money from IDBI bank against which the O.P. No.1 assured to advance loan up to Rs.4 Lakhs. Accordingly, the Branch Manager of OP bank advised the Complainant to submit relevant documents including searching report and other documents. The Complainant accordingly submitted the documents to the O.P. No.1 bank through the loan Officer of OP bank. After scrutiny the loan Officer wanted no objection certificate from BLRO Office which the Complainant submitted. As per further demand, the Complainant also submitted documents of Khatian No.1374, Dag No.821 on 09.09.17 alongwith Deed No.4778, Volume No.37 by spending Rs.4000/-. The OP investigated the said documents. The Complainant spent cost for ITR-V. Subsequently the loan Officer of the said bank Sri Tanmay Biswas and Sri Dhaniram Das inquired the business of the Complainant and took Rs.800/- from the Complainant for transportation with a direction to meet the Office immediately. Subsequently, the bank authority advised the Complainant to open three accounts which the Complainant did by depositing Rs.7,500/-. The bank authority also asked the Complainant to ensure for life insurance for Rs.45,274/- Vide Policy No.4001006213. Despite giving assurance about sanction of the loan the bank informed that due to lack of jurisdiction power not granted for which the Complainant was barred from getting Mudra loan. The Complainant therefore submitted a letter to the OP on 26.10.18 but the bank did not co-operate with the Complainant. Finally the Complainant sent a legal notice on 05.02.19 to O.P. No.1 & 2 through his Advocate. Despite receiving the said notice the Op did not reply to the same. So the act of the O.Ps amounted to deficiency in service due to non-sanctioning of the loan despite fulfilling of the requirement and expenses. The cause of action arose on 26.10.18 and subsequent dates. The Complainant therefore prayed for an award with a direction to the OP to sanction the said loan, Rs.30,000/- as compensation for mental pain and agony, Rs.50,000/- towards deficiency in service and Rs.15,000/- towards cost of proceedings.
The O.P. No.1 & 2 contested the case denying all the allegations through their written version. The positive defence case of the OP in brief is that the Complainant filed this case just to harass the OP. Dhaniram Das is not a loan Officer nor did the loan Officer of O.P. No.1 & 2 collect any amount of Rs.800/- from the Complainant. The O.P. No.1 & 2 are not insurer, so the question of opening three bank accounts does not arise. The O.P. No.1 & 2 did not issue any letter to their empanelled Lawyer Sri Bipul Goswami regarding title verification of the Complainant. The O.P. No.1 & 2 however issued two letters to the BL & LRO dated 20.06.16 and 20.06.17 for the Complainants land. After lapse of one year the BL & LRO issued a letter in favour of the OP dated 10.07.17. The O.P. No.1 & 2 did not collect any money for their expenses nor did sale out any insurance policy to him. As per policy, the O.P. No.1 & 2 after completion of all procedures use to sanction loan. The Complainant did not complete all the documents and submit the necessary documents for sanctioning loan. The O.P. No.1 & 2 have no discretionary power to reject the loan before disbursement. The OP claimed that the case is liable to be dismissed with cost.
The pleadings of the parties and the points of dispute persuaded this Commission to ascertain the following points for determination.
Points for Determination
- Whether the Complainant is a consumer under the C.P. Act?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
- To what other relief if any the Complainant is entitled to get?
Decision with reasons
Point No.1.
The Complainant claimed that despite fulfilment of all conditions the OP did not sanction the loan. After perusing the pleadings of the parties it is found that the Complainant applied for some loan to the OP but as per the defence case due to incomplete submission of document and delay in submission of report by BL & LRO the OP could not sanction the loan. Thus the relation between the parties comes within the purview of the C.P. Act. The OP is a banking institution. The Complainant as a consumer applied for loan and as such the alleged transaction as well as the relation between the parties come within the purview of the C.P. Act. So, the Complainant is a consumer under the C.P. Act.
Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in affirmative and decided on behalf of the Complainant.
Points No.2 & 3.
These points relate to ascertainment of the question as to entitlement of relief by the Complainant.
The Complainant claimed that he filed the loan application to the OP bank but despite fulfilling all the conditions the OP did not sanction the loan. In order to prove the case the Complainant filed some documents. Annexure-D discloses that the Complainant had customer Id with the OP bank bearing No.88114976. But the Complainant did not disclose the said number in his pleadings. Annexure-E discloses that a letter of insurance was issued to the Complainant by IDBI Federal Life Insurance Company to the Complainant Vide Policy No.4001006213 for a sum of Rs. 6 Lakhs. As far as the pleadings is concerned the Complainant pleaded and stated in evidence on affidavit that the loan Officer Sri Tanmay Biswas and Sri Dhaniram Das inquired the business of the Complainant and took Rs.800/- for transportation charge. The OP categorically denied that there was no loan Officer of the OP bank by the name Dhaniram Das.
The Complainant submitted one letter dated 03.03.18 to the OP bank being Annexure-F regarding fraud in granting loan by the previous Branch Manager, Sri Rajib Biswas. The bank received the letter but no reply was given. The OP bank through their evidence stated that there is no loan Officer by the name of Dhaniram Das and they did not collect Rs.800/- as claimed by the Complainant. The OP bank also claimed that there was inordinate delay in filing the documents specially the searching report by the BL & LRO, which was submitted after one year i.e. on 20.06.16 and 20.06.17. Although the OP denied that the said Bipul Goswami in not their empanelled Advocate for searching through oral argument by the Ld. Defence Counsel but the written version of OP discloses that in Para-15 of written version they stated that the O.P. No.1 & 2 did not issue any letter to their empanelled Lawyer Sri Bipul Goswami for title verification of the Complainant. There is no evidence on the part of the said Advocate Bipul Goswami or any document by the Complainant that the OP instructed for said Bipul Goswami for submission of searching report after title verification. The said searching report issued by Sri Bipul Goswami Advocate also has got no reference to any direction by the O.P. No.1 & 2. The letter of the BL & LRO to the Branch Manager of OP bank discloses that the letter was issued by the OP bank for issuance of NOC for equitable mortgage for loan under section 14(P) on 20.06.16 but the reply was given after one year on 10.07.17 i.e. after more than one year.
Ld. Defence Counsel argued that for obtaining loan, the loanee has to comply with different terms and conditions of the bank. He has to file loan application, prepare personal profile report of field Officer and loan department. After inspection and online verification on the basis of income statement to repay the loan and CIBIL of the loanee, the loan is sanctioned.
The Complainant seems to have not filed all those documents or any copy of the said document to establish that the Complainant fulfilled all the terms and conditions. There is no document to show that the loan of the Complainant was sanctioned nor is there any documents proved by the Complainant that the OP assured that the loan would be sanctioned.
Ld. Defence Counsel also argued that the insurance company is not a party to this case.
Although the Complainant filed a letter of IDBI Federal Life Insurance Company being Annexure-E yet the said insurance company is not a party to this case.
In the backdrop of the aforesaid discussion and having assessed in the entire case of both the parties the Commission comes to the finding that the Complainant could not prove the case up to the hilt. Accordingly no relief can be granted in the instant case to the Complainant.
Accordingly, Points No. 2 & 3 are answered in negative against the Complainant.
Consequently, the complaint case fails.
Hence, it is
Ordered
That the complaint case No.CC/90/2019 be and the same is dismissed on contest without cost.
The Complaint case is accordingly disposed of.
D.A. to note in the trial Register.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the concerned party by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action as per rule.
The copy of the Final Order be also available in the official website: www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
