Tamil Nadu

Nagapattinam

CC/3/2014

Cinnadurai - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Sirkazhi and 2 others. - Opp.Party(s)

M.Jawaharlal

02 Mar 2015

ORDER

   Date of Filing      : 28.01.2014

                                                                                                                      Date of Disposal: 02.03.2015

           

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

NAGAPATTINAM

 

PRESENT: THIRU.P.G.RAJAGOPAL, B.A.B.L.,         …..PRESIDENT

    THIRU.A.BASHEER AHAMED,B.Com., …. MEMBER I

                   Tmt. R.GEETHA, B.A.,                             …. MEMBER II

 

CC. No.03/2014

 

DECIDED ON THIS 2^nd  DAY OF MARCH 2015.

 

Chinnadurai

S/o Iyasami

18, Arasalumangalam Big Street,

Pachchaiperumalnallur,

Sirkali Taluk, Nagapattinam District.                                … Complainant

                                                                                      

                                                                /versus/

 

1. The Branch Manager,

     Indian Bank,

     Thenpathi Branch,

     Sirkali.

2. District Manager,

    TAHDCO Ltd.,

     Nagapattinam.

3. The District Collector,     

    Collectorate, Nagapattinam.                                          … Opposite parties

 

          

 

            This complaint having come up for final hearing before us on 13.01.2015, on perusal of the material records and on hearing the arguments of Thiru.M.Jawaharlal, Counsel for the complainant, Thiru.E.Selvaraj, counsel for the 1^st opposite party, Government Pleader, Counsel for the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties and having stood for consideration, till this day the Forum passed the following

 

ORDER

     By the President, Thiru.P.G.Rajagopal, B.A.B.L., 

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. 

        2. The gist of the complaint filed by the complainant is that based on the concurrence of the 1^st opposite party to grant loan to the complainant, the 2^nd opposite party sanctioned the subsidy of Rs.89,550/- and sent a letter to the 1^st opposite party recommending the sanction of the loan of Rs.1,94,025/- to the complainant for starting a computer center and subsequently the 1^st opposite party refused to sanction the loan stating that the people of below caste, would not repay the the loan and hence the rejection letter has been sent to the 2^nd opposite party.  The complainant had been to the 1^st opposite party branch for about 25 times in connection with the demand of the loan amount and had spent huge amount towards obtaining the project report, lease deed for the site to run the business and to get other documents such as the income certificate, etc.  The 1^st opposite party has committed deficiency of service by subsequently refusing the sanctioning of the loan to the complainant.  Hence the complainant prays for an order to direct the 1^st opposite party to sanction the loan of Rs.1,94,025/-, to pay the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the mental agony, inconvenience and expenditure caused to the complainant owing to the deficiency of service of the 1^st opposite party, to pay the cost of this litigation and grant such and other reliefs as this Forum would deem fit.

                        3. The gist of the written version filed by the 1^st opposite party is that the allegation that the 1^st opposite party, told the complainant that the people of below caste would not the repay the loan and hence loan could not be sanctioned is false and the 1^st opposite party has nothing to do with the expenditure incurred by the complainant for getting the project report, the lease deed and other certificates in connection with his loan application, for the notice issued by the complainant on 29.05.2013 the 1^st opposite party has sent a suitable reply on 16.12.2013 and the averments in the said reply may also he treated as part of this counter.  The Field Officer of the 1^st opposite party on enquiry came to know that the complainant did not have any experience in the computer center business and as the complainant’s residential place as well as the place chosen by him for the business are not within the service area of the 1^st opposite party.  As he was not having any experience in the computer center business his application for the loan was rejected by the 1^st opposite party and there is no other motive or reason for the rejection of the complainant’s application for the loan.  The 1^st opposite party has no way committed any deficiency of service or caused the mental agony, inconvenience or expenditure to the complainant as alleged by him.  The complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed.

                        4. The gist of the written version filed by the 2^nd opposite party is that the application of the complainant for the sanctioning of the loan was received through on line on 23.01.2013 interview conducted on 26.02.2013 and the committee selected the complainant for sanction of the loan for establishing the computer centre. His application with proposal was forwarded to the 1^st opposite party on 18.03.2013.  The Form-III proposal for sanctioning for subsidy was received from the 1^st opposite party by the 2^nd opposite party on 26.03.2013 and after concurrence of the District Collector; the subsidy was released on 30.03.2013.  As far as the 2^nd and 3^rd  opposite parties are concerned the 2^nd opposite party has duly recommended the sanctioning of loan for the complainant, released the subsidy and sent it to the lead Bank of the 1^st opposite party’s bank and there is no deficiency of service on their part.  Therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed as against the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties.  Further there is no relationship of the consumer and service provider between the complainant and the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties and therefore the complaint is not maintainable under law.

                        5. The complainant has filed his proof affidavit reiterating all the averments made in the complaint and filed 11 documents which are marked as Exhibits A1 to A11.  The 1^st opposite party has filed his proof affidavit in proof of his defence and filed 8 documents which are marked as Exhibits B1 to B8. The 2^nd opposite party has filed his proof affidavit and filed one document which is marked as Exhibit B9.  Written arguments have been submitted by the complainant and the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.

                        6.  Points for consideration:-

 

                        1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the 1^st   opposite party?

                                       2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what relief?

                        7. Point 1: The main allegation of the complainant as against the 1^st opposite party is that he applied for loan under the Entrepreneur Development Programme to establish a Computer Centre.  The 1^st opposite party consented for advancement of the loan to the complainant by way of sanction proposal in Format-III based on which the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties recommended for the disbursement of the loan of Rs.2,98,500/- out of which the subsidy of Rs.89,550/- was granted by the 2^nd opposite party, but ultimately the 1^st opposite party has wantonly refused to sanction the loan to the complainant with ulterior motive after the complainant’s making of preparations, such as entering into agreement for the place of business, submitting the documents for the commencement of the business and thus has committed deficiency of service.  The complainant has deposed oral testimony before this Forum and is also cross examined by the 1^st opposite party. 

8. The complainant has filed Exhibit A1, the acknowledgment given by the 2^nd opposite party for receiving the application from the complainant under the Entrepreneur Development Programme, Exhibit A2, is the proposal for granting the loan to the complainant by the 1^st opposite party in Format-III, Exhibit A3, is the proceedings of the District Collector, the 3^rd opposite party, sanctioning loan of Rs.2,98,500/- and releasing the subsidy amount of Rs.89,550/- in favour of the 1^st opposite party for advancement of loan to the complainant, Exhibit A4, is the Xerox copy of the Family Card of the complainant, Exhibit A5, is the Identity Card of the complainant issued by the Election Commission of India, Exhibit A6, is the income certificate issued to the complainant by the Zonal Deputy Tashildar, Sirkali, Exhibit A7, is the residence certificate issued to the complainant by the Tashildar(Joint), Sirkali, Exhibit A8, is the Xerox copy of the Community Certificate issued by the Tashildar, Sirkali, Exhibit A9, is the Xerox copy of the Lease Agreement between one Thirumathi.Meena, the owner of the premises and the complainant lessee for commencement of the business, Exhibit A10, is the quotation for HCL brand Desktop Computer, Canon copier and Color Printer along with the project report of his business submitted by the complainant and Exhibit A11, is the letter sent by the 1^st opposite party to the 2^nd opposite party returning the loan applications of three applicants including the complainant.

                        9.  The contention of the 1^st opposite party is that the allegation of the complainant that the 1^st opposite party wantonly denied the sanctioning of TAHDCO loan to the complainant alleging on the face of the complainant that the people of his community would not repay the loan and therefore the loan amount could not be sanctioned is totally false and the loan could not be sanctioned to the complainant only for two reasons namely, neither his place of residence nor the proposed place of business was within the service area of the 1^st opposite party’s Branch and the complainant was also not credit worthy. 

10. On the side of the 1^st opposite party, Exhibits B1, the notice dated 29.05.2013 sent by the complainant’s lawyer to the opposite parties as well as the Regional Manager of the Indian Bank, Kumbakonam, Exhibit B2, the reply dated 16.12.2013 given by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant’s lawyer to the said Exhibit A1, Exhibit B3, the postal acknowledgment card of the complainant’s lawyer, Exhibit B4, the postal acknowledgment card of the 2^nd opposite party, Exhibit B5, the letter dated 22.05.2013 sent by the 1^st opposite party to the 2^nd opposite party returning the TAHDCO applications of three persons including the complainant, Exhibit B6, the report of the 1^st opposite party’s pre sanctioning visits for  TAHDCO scheme loan, Exhibit B7, the letter dated 13.04.2013 sent by the 1^st opposite party to the Assistance General Manager, Indian Bank, Zonal office, Kumbakonam and Exhibit B8, the letter dated 19.04.2013 of the 1^st opposite party sent to the 2^nd opposite party returning the TAHDCO applications of five persons including the complainant are filed.  On the side of the 2^nd opposite party Exhibit B9, the Format -III, sent by the 1^st opposite party to the 2^nd opposite party  with respect to the TAHDCO loan of Nagapattinam District is filed.

                        11. It is surprising that the complainant has not made any mention of the notice dated 29.05.2013 sent by him to the opposite parties prior to the filing of the complaint and it is pertinent to note that the 1^st opposite party has sent a reply to the said notice only on 29.05.2013, that is, after receiving the notice on this complaint filed by the complainant, that is nearly 5 months after the date of receipt of the notice. The reasons stated by the 1^st opposite party for returning the loan application of the complainant is that the complainant is not credit worthy as stated under Exhibit B8 dated, 19.04.2013. Another reason sated is that they are not under the service area of the 1^st opposite party as stated in the Exhibit B5, dated 22.05.2013. In Exhibit B6, the report of the 1^st opposite party dated 12.04.2013 it is stated that the complainant/borrower did not have adequate knowledge and experience in the particular field and the borrower if set up the shop at sathanathapuram the business would not be profitable as it is out of the town limit and further the complainant does not come under the service area of the 1^st opposite party as stated under Exhibit B7, dated 13.04.2013.  The 1^st opposite party has sent a letter to the Assistant General Manager of his Zonal office, Kumbakonam stating that the complainant was not having any experience in the field, he does not belong to their service area and further he is not credit worthy and hence the above application was recommended to be returned, Exhibit B9, the Format- III is the document signed by the 1^st opposite party and forwarded to the 2^nd opposite party, in pursuance of which the latter has released  the subsidy amount of Rs.89,550/- and recommended the sanctioning of bank loan of Rs.1,94,025/-.  The opposite party no.2 has categorically deposed during the course of his cross examinination by the 1^st opposite party that they are granting subsidy only based on the Format-III submitted by the concerned bank.  The Format-III, Exhibit B9 and A2 dated 26.03.2013 signed by the 1^st opposite party are submitted to the 2^nd opposite party which is not denied at all.  While Exhibit B9, Format-III had been submitted on 26.03.2013  the letters returning the TAHDCO application are sent by the 1^st opposite party only subsequent to the said forwarding of the Format-III.  The TAHDCO application for loan had been returned by the 1^st opposite party for the reasons that the borrower was not credit worthy and did not belong to their service area.  The said letters sent by the 1^st opposite party returning the TAHDCO application of the complainant to the 2^nd opposite party are Exhibits B6, B8 and Exhibit B5, dated 12.04.2013, 19.04.2013 and 22.05.2013 respectively.  The 2^nd opposite party has already deposed during the course of the cross examination “Mdhš eh§fŸ khåa¤ bjhif tH§Ftnj mªj t§»æ‹ gçªJiuahd got« 3‹ mo¥gilæšjh‹” Therefore it is clearly proved that Format III, Exhibit B9 and A2 are the basic and primary document on the basis of which the 2^nd opposite party used to release the subsidy amount thereby recommending the TAHDCO loan amount to the concerned complainant.

                        12. In this case the 1^st opposite party had submitted the Exhibit B9, the Format III and subsequently returned the TAHDCO application of the complainant on the ground that he had been not credit worthy besides not coming under the service area of their Bank.  The 1^st opposite party ought to have made thorough enquiry regarding the borrowers’ credit worthiness’, his competency and experience to do the business, the particulars regarding, the place of business and the future prospects and profitability of the business, etc. prior to submitting the said Format -III.

                        13. On the other hand the 1^st opposite party mechanically submitted the said Format-III to the 2^nd opposite party and has caused the release of the subsidy amount of Rs.89,550/- as prelude towards sanctioning of the loan by the 1^st opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party has started the investigation regarding the credit worthiness and other pros and cons on the part of the borrower to sanction the loan, only after the said release of the subsidy amount  before sanctioning the loan amount which act ought to have been done by him before submitting the Format- III, the Exhibit A2 and B9 to the 2^nd opposite party. Had the 1^st opposite party done the investigation prior to the submission of the Format-III he could not have submitted the Format- III which  tantamounts to acceptance for advancing the loan amount to the borrower.  Had the complainant expressed the refusal to sanction the loan amount to the complainant in the Format- III, the complainant could not have wasted his energy, time and money towards taking steps and getting the documents such as the lease agreement for commencement of the business, various project report, quotation for the computer systems and various other certificates from the various officials .  Therefore the act of the 1^st opposite party in mechanically submitting the Format-III which is indication of his concurrence for sanctioning loan to the complainant and subsequently returning his loan application on the ground that the borrower was not credit worthy and himself and the proposed place of business are not within his service area is definitely deficiency of service on his part.

 

            14. No doubt it is held by the Hon’ble National Commission in the decision reported in 2010 (4) CPR, page no. 815

The Manager, Andhra Bank & Another… Petitioners

              /Vs/

M.Jayaraj & Others                                    … Respondents

In which it is held that it is not obligatory on the part of the petitioner to sanction loan and merely because loan has not been sanctioned no deficiency can be attributed on the part of the petitioners unless action his shown as malafide. Therefore the mere returning of the TAHDCO loan application of the complainant by the 1^st opposite party to the 2^nd opposite party is not deficiency of service but the rejection of the application after having sent his concurrence report in Format No.III for sanctioning the loan is sheer deficiency of service on the part of the 1^st opposite party.

                        15. Point 2: In the result, the complaint is partly allowed.  The complainant is not entitled to the relief of a direction of this Forum to the 1^st opposite party to advance the loan amount to the complainant as it is purely within the discretion of the 1^st opposite party. As the 1^st opposite party has committed deficiency of service by returning the loan application of the complainant after submission of his proposal for loan under Format No.III, thereby causing the release of the subsidy of Rs.89,550/-(Rupees eighty nine thousand five hundred and fifty only) in favour of the complainant’s loan the 1^st opposite party is directed to pay the sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) to the complainant towards his mental agony and waste of his energy, time and money  towards taking steps and collecting the documents for getting the loan amount from the 1^st opposite party and also to pay the sum of Rs.3,000/-(Rupees three thousand only)  towards cost of this litigation. The 1^st opposite party is directed to pay the said compensation of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) to the complainant within thirty days from the date of this order, failing which the said amount shall carry an interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of this order till the date of the payment.

This order is dictated by me to the Steno-Typist, transcribed, typed  by him and corrected and pronounced by me on this  2^nd  day of  March 2015.

 

 

    MEMBER I                                    MEMBER II                                 PRESIDENT

List of the documents filed by the complainant:-

Ex.A1/Dt.24.01.2013: The Xerox copy of the Acknowledgment for submission of loan

   application of the complainant on Online.

Ex.A2/Dt.26.03.2013: The Xerox copy of the Format-III, given by the 1^st opposite party

    to the 2^nd opposite party.

Ex.A3/Dt.30.03.2013: The Xerox copy of the the proceedings of the District Collector, in

     favour of the 1^st and 2^nd  opposite parties for advancement of

     loan  to the complainant.

Ex.A4/Dt.                   : The Xerox copy of the Family Card of the complainant.

Ex.A5/Dt.                   : The Xerox copy of the Identity Card of the complainant issued by

   the Election Commission of India

 Ex.A6/Dt.                  : The Xerox copy of the Income certificate of the complainant given

    by the Tashildar, Sirkali.

Ex.A7/Dt.                   : The Xerox Copy of Nativity certificate of the complainant given by

   the Tashildar, Sirkali.

Ex.A8/Dt.12.11.2004: The Xerox Copy of the Community certificate of the complainant

   given by the Tashildar, Sirkali.

 Ex.A9/Dt.02.05.2013: The  Xerox copy of the Lease Agreement between  one

   Thirumathi.Meena and the complainant.

Ex.A10/Dt.23.11.2013: The Xerox  Copy of  the quotation for HCL brand Desktop

     Computer, Canon copier and Color Printer.

Ex.A11/Dt.22.05.2013: The Xerox copy of the letter sent by the 1^st opposite party to the

     2^nd opposite party returning the loan application.

 

List of the documents filed by the 1^st opposite party:-

Ex.B1/Dt.29.05.2013: The Xerox copy of the notice sent by the complainant’s counsel to

   the opposite parties.

Ex.B2/Dt.16.12.2013: The Xerox copy of the reply sent by the 1^st opposite party’s

  counsel to the complainant’s counsel.

 

Ex.B3/Dt.                   : The postal acknowledgment card of the complainant’s lawyer.

Ex.B4/Dt.                   : The postal acknowledgment card of the 2^nd opposite party.

Ex.B5/Dt.22.05.2013: Copy of the letter sent by the 1^st opposite party to the 2^nd opposite

   party returning the TAHDCO application of the complainant.

 Ex.B6/Dt.12.04.2013: The Xerox copy of the report of the 1^st opposite party’s pre

    sanctioning visits for  TAHDCO scheme loan.

Ex.B7/Dt.13.04.2013: The Xerox Copy of the letter sent by the 1^st opposite party to the

     Assistant General Manager, Indian Bank, Zonal office,

     Kumbakonam.

Ex.B8/Dt.19.04.2013: The Xerox copy of the  letter sent by the 1^st opposite party to the

   2^nd opposite party returning the TAHDCO Application.

Ex.B9/Dt.26.03.2013: The Xerox copy of the Format-III, given by the 1^st opposite party

    to the 2^nd opposite party.

.

 

 

    MEMBER I                                    MEMBER II                                 PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                                        

 

                                                                                                                                                  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM,

NAGAPATTINAM.

 

CC.No.03/ 2014

Order Dt.: 02.03.2015.