F.A.No.800/2011 against C.C.No.1/2011, Dist. Forum,Warangal.  

Between:                                      

Aluri Christopher, S/o.William Carry,

Aged about  57  years , Ocu: Govt.

Employee, R/o.H.No.4-5-33, Kumarpally

Market, Hanumakonda, Warangal.                          …  Appellant/

                                                                              Complainant

            And

The Branch Manager, Indian Bank at

Mandibazar, Warangal.                                         … Respondent/

                                                                            Opp.party 

Counsel for the  Appellant         :       M/s. Manginapally Sadasivudu  

Counsel for the Respondent      :      Mr.M.Ajay Kumar

QUORUM:THE HON’BLEJUSTICE SRI D.APPA RAO,PRESIDENT,  

SMT.M.SHREESHA,HON’BLE MEMBER                                                                      AND

      SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER. 

              MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF   SEPTEMBER,

                            TWO THOUSAND TWELVE

Oral Order:(Per Sri S.Bhujanga Rao, Hon’ble Member)

                                                                ***

            The unsuccessful complainant  filed the above appeal against the order dt.3.8.2011  of the District Forum, Warangal  made in C.C.No.1/2011 filed by the complainant  for direction to pay Rs.3,18,000/- towards the loss caused to the complainant with interest and costs.

        The brief case of the complainant as per the complaint is as follows:

The complainant  has applied for home loan of Rs.15 lakhs  on 10.5.2008 with the opp.party bank  showing his wife Smt.D.Sukanya  as guarantor and the application of the complainant was stated to have  been forwarded to Regional Office, Hyderabad   for sanction of the loan, as the loan amount is more than Rs.10 lakhs.  The Branch Manager of the opp.party bank collected some documents from the complainant in the month of  May 2008  itself. The complainant  spent about Rs.20,000/-  to obtain the said documents to complete the formalities as advised by the Branch Manager. 

        Unfortunately, the loan  was not sanctioned and the same was not intimated to the complainant, anticipating sanction of loan of Rs.15 lakhs, the complainant purchased 150 bags of cement  and kept at the  site of plot. He has also purchased  two tons of steel and kept near the  site to start the construction as soon as the loan is granted.  The complainant visited the opposite party bank several times  to know the position of the home loan and the Manager  of the bank   dodged the issue  on one pretext or the other. The complainant  approached the Regional Office  but there was no response.  The complainant invested more than  Rs.3 lakhs in anticipation  of sanction of loan  by the opp.party bank as cement and steel kept at the site would go waste.  The entire steel and cement worth Rs.1,50,000/-  gone waste. The complainant has also incurred Rs.6000/-  per month by employing  a watchman at the site. 

        Non sanction of loan comes under  deficiency in service  as defined under Consumer Protection Act.  The complainant has sustained total  loss of Rs.3,18,000/-  as detailed in the complaint  for non sanction of loan.   Hence the complaint. 

        Resisting the complaint, opp.party filed written version contending that  the  complainant  does not come under the definition of ‘consumer’    as there is no nexus between the complainant and  the opp.party  as  a consumer and  service provider.  Hence the complaint is not maintainable.  The complainant came to the Court with unclean hands  and tried to obtain loan by  misrepresentation and suppression of the facts. Hence there is no deficiency in service  on the part of the opp.party. 

        The opp.party further contended that sanctioning  any house loan, education loan, consumer loan by the Government organisation is governed by  the rules and regulations of RBI. The opposite party branch has no power  to sanction any  loans. The circle offices scrutinise all such loan applications for sanctioning of the loans. The Branch Manager only send  proper documents for sanction  of the  loan. The complainant has not complied  the required     formalities of the Bank and failed to supply the same inspite of repeated reminders made by the opp.party to send the same to the circle office for sanction of loan.           Moreover, the complainant  is not having any account with the opposite party bank  to take the loan.   

         The opposite further contended that when the complainant approached the bank for using the  loan, the opp.party issued a form to the complainant and the complainant filled an application and the opp.party requested the complainant to submit the  legal scrutiny report, original registered  sale deed, title for 30 years, salary certificate and other banks’ clearance certificate to process the application  and the complainant intimated that he had not obtained any loans from any banks and he has no dues to any bank  and after sanction of loan he is going to apply for permission to construct the house.   After submitting the application to the Circle office for scrutiny it is revealed that the complainant obtained the loans from ICICI bank, Karnataka Bank and SBH and in the said banks there are overdues without  payments and the opposite party  immediately intimated the same to the complainant and informed that unless and until the said overdues are cleared, the loans cannot be processed and requested to submit the sanctioned plan, link documents and clearance certificate along with taxation certificate to process the loan. Till the  date of the  complaint, the  complainant did not comply  with the above required things. That  apart,  the complainant has only  two years of service, as such, the loan cannot be processed and only  50%  of the amount of the application can be granted and the same is informed to the opp.party.

        Opp.party further  contends  that there is no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed with costs to this opposite party. 

        In order to prove his  case  the complainant filed his affidavit evidence and got marked Exs.A1 to A21.  On behalf of the opposite party , its Branch Manager, one Mr.M.Ganapathi  filed his evidence affidavit,  but not filed  any documents . 

        Upon hearing the counsel  for both the parties,  and on consideration of the material on record ,  the District Forum dismissed the complaint. 

        Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred  the above appeal contending that the order of the District Forum is erroneous in law and contrary  to the facts on record and against the consumerism framed as per the Consumer Protection Act,1986 and the same is liable to be set aside.  That the District Forum has  committed  grave error in having passed  impugned orders against the appellant herein, though, the  respondent/opp.party  did not appear and  participate  in the enquiry.  That the District Forum ought not to have  dismissed the complaint  in toto   as no evidence or documents  have been placed by the respondent/opp.party. That the District Forum ought to have seen that there is deficiency in service  which always to be seen in the facts and  documents placed by him i.e. the appellant/complainant. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the complaint filed by the  appellant/complainant   is to be allowed. 

        We heard the counsel for both the  parties and perused the entire material placed on record. 

        Now the point for  consideration is whether the impugned order of the District Forum is liable to be set aside? If so, on what grounds?

        It is  an admitted fact that the complainant  has applied for  loan  of Rs.15 lakhs  on 10.5.2008 from opposite party bank vide Ex.A4 showing  his wife who is the government teacher, as guarantor. 

        The contention  of the opposite party bank is that the complainant  filled an application  form  provided by the opposite party and after filling of the application, the  Manager of opposite party bank requested the complainant  to submit legal  scrutiny report, original registered sale deed, title for 30 years, salary certificate and other banks’ clearance certificates  and bank appraisal  asset liability form  to  process the loan application for which the complainant stated that he  has not obtained any loans from any banks and he was not due to pay any amount to any bank and that after sanction of loan he would apply for permission to construct the house.  The opposite party further contended that after  submitting the application, they came to know that the complainant obtained loans from  ICIC Bank, Karnataka Bank and SBH and in the said banks there are overdues to the banks and until and unless the said overdues are cleared  the loans cannot be processed and requested the complainant to submit link documents  and clearance certificate along with taxation certificate to process the loan, but the complainant did not file the loan clearance certificate from the above said banks.  On the other hand, the complainant  sent a letter on 18.7.2008 stating that he  is going to clear all the dues of SBH, ICICI Bank and Karnataka Bank within a short span of time. Even, thereafter, the complainant  did not clear the overdues to  other banks.  Objections raised by the central office of the opposite party were also not clarified by the complainant by submitting fate of account of SBH, flow of title for 30 years , clearance from ICICI and Karnataka Bank. As such, the  loan was not sanctioned for want of above information.  The said fact was also intimated to the complainant. 

        From the documents filed by the complainant, it appears  that the complainant   secured  some of the documents  but not all  as required  by the opposite party bank.  

In his  evidence affidavit, the complainant admitted that he has taken personal   loan from ICICI Bank , Karnataka Bank and SBH  but he has not taken any  home loan from  the said banks. The complainant  has claimed that he has cleared  the personal loans but he did not place any evidence in proof of the same.  In the letter dt. 27.5.2009  addressed to the Branch Manager of the opp.party bank vide Ex.A7, the complainant admitted  that he was having dues with ICICI  bank  and undertake to clear the overdues well before the release of the said home loan.  It is not known, whether he cleared the dues with ICICI  Bank. There is no  satisfactory material to show that  he  complied with all  the requirements to process the loan.  When the complainant has  not submitted all the documents required by the bank, nothing can  be attributed to the opposite party  bank for not processing the home loan of the complainant.  Simply because the complainant applied for home loan, there is no obligation on the bank to sanction the loan irrespective of the  fact  whether  the applicant submitted  the required documents or not.  If the bank  is not  satisfied with  the information  furnished by the   applicant, the bank has got every right to reject the application. 

        Further, the case of the complainant is that in anticipation of sanction of loan,  he has  purchased  steel and cement for construction  of the building  on the plot and also incurred Rs.6000/- per month  by appointing watch man thereby the complainant sustained loss of Rs.3,18,300/- . The opposite party bank has not given any prior assurance to the complainant regarding sanction of loan. The opposite party bank  has nothing to do with the acts of the complainant    prior to sanction of loan.  Further, nothing prevented the complainant from approaching  some other Bank for loan, if the opposite party bank has been delaying  sanction of loan, save the material said to have been purchased by him.  Under these circumstances,   the opposite party   is not liable to reimburse  any loss sustained by the complainant  prior to sanction of the loan. 

         Even if  the entire  case of the complainant is accepted, there is no hiring of any service of the opposite party by the complainant.  The complainant has not paid any amount to the bank.  In the absence of  ‘hiring of any service’,   the dispute cannot be termed as consumer dispute within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act.   In any view of the matter, we are of the view that the complaint is not maintainable under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.           

        For the foregoing  reasons we find no grounds to interfere with the impugned order of the District Forum to interfere with it. 

In the result, the appeal is dismissed  confirming  the impugned order of the District  Forum, but in the circumstances of case  there shall be no order as to costs.

                                                                        PRESIDENT

                                                                        MEMBER

                                                                        MEMBER

Pm*                                                                  Dt.3.9.2012