JUDGEMENT

By : SMT. BANDANA ROY, PRESIDENT

DATE:  05-12-2016

   The case of the complainant in brief is that in December, 2015 the petitioner had been to the office of the OP Bank for the purpose of a loan. The OP Bank scrutinized the documents of the complainant vividly relating to the landed property, his pay slip etc and sanctioned a loan to the tune of Rs. 18,00,000/- and asked to make an agreement with the land owner and submit a copy of the agreement. Accordingly the petitioner made an agreement with the land owner for purchase of a one storied building on 705 Sq.Ft. land at mouza Kamranga, valued of which was Rs. 22,00,000/- in District Howrah. On 06.02.15 the petitioner went to the office of the OP with all the relevant papers  and being advised opened a Savings Bank A/C with the OP Bank by depositing a sum of Rs. 1,000/-. The petitioner on the same day signed various documents of the bank relating sanction of the loan. On 08.02.16 petitioner again met with the officials of the OP Bank and again deposited a sum of Rs.  8,000/- in his A/C No. 2521000103217666. The OP visited the property physically and verified all the papers. On 10.02.16 the OP advised the petitioner for conversion of the land to Bastu land for sanction of the loan. The petitioner accordingly submitted the conversion certificate to the OP on 21.03.16.  Ultimately on 07.04.16 the OP refused to sanction the loan on the ground of misbehavior of the petitioner in course of processing the loan papers etc. As such the petitioner faced much hardship because he already entered into agreement with the land owner and made advance of money. After all the OP deliberately freezed the account of the petitioner and returned him only Rs. 3,840 /- against his total balance of Rs. 9,000/-; his all attempt to get back the balance amount went in vain.

            In the aforesaid circumstances, the complainant has been compel this instant complaint with the prayer for reliefs as stated therein.

            The  OP Punjab National Bank Mechada Branch contested the complaint petition by filing written version.  It contended that the case is barred under the provision of Consumer Protection Act. The OP further stated that the applicant has shown existence of some administrative problem from his department and denied to take the loan. This fact would be evident from the letter submitted by the claimant on 07.04.16.  The prayer of the complainant is false, frivolous baseless and petitioner is not entitled ti get any kind of relief.

            Specific case of the OP is that the complainant approached for a loan on 10.02.16 and requested of the OP for inspection of the property with necessary documents. The OP visited the spot through its agency but the petitioner could not show the conversion certificate. For valuation of the landed property against which loan had been prayed, the OP appointed an empaneled valuer and a sum of Rs. 5000/- had been paid to the said valuer from the A/C of the complainant. The OP further stated that the OP never agreed to accord loan of Rs. 18,000,00/-  as the complainant was not eligible for the said loan. The valuer was appointed on the consent of the petitioner and it is the petitioner who was to pay the charge of valuation made by a third party.         

            In the above context, the OP prays for dismissal the case with heavy cost.

Points for Decision

            Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the relief or reliefs as prayed for.

Decision with Reasons.

            We have perused the complaint and written version and the documents filed by the parties. We  have heard the arguments advanced  by ld Lawyer for both parties. It appears that main dispute in this case is whether the OP was deficient in service by deducting Rs 5000/- from the account of the complainant without the consent of the complainant admittedly who is a account holder in the bank of the OP. Admittedly complainant applied for a loan. Admittedly OP did not sanction that loan. Admittedly OP deducted Rs 5000/- from the account of the complainant in the OP bank. According to the  ld   laywer  for the OP  the OP insisted complainant for conversion  of the land to Bastu classification for sanction  of the loan to the complainant. The vendor/owner  of land Sri Majoj Kumar  Nandi applied for the conversion of the land and on hearing on 21.03.16 the said certificate was submitted by the OP.  ld lawyer for the OP filed a copy of circular intimating  the service charges of the bank to his Firm. Ld. lawyer pointed out that in Clause 20 in Sub-section VII the valuation charges of appraisers can be recoverable from the applicant who approached for loan. Admittedly Surveyor valued the land and his fees is Rs 5000/- which has been paid by the complainant. But question is whether OP can deduct the said amount from the complainant’s account without informing him and without informing him about the terms and conditions of consolidated charge .We have perused the copy of circular. It is not signed by anyone.  Neither it is signed by the complainant nor signed by OP’s representatives.  It is very much clear that the complainant was ignorant of that Clause at the time of making payment. It is not good practice on behalf of the OP and we are of the view OP cannot deduct Rs 5000/- from the complainant’s account without his knowledge. Complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs 5000/- from the OP. We do not want to impose any compensation on the OP but OP will have to pay the litigation cost.

             Hence, it is

O r d e r e d

            That the complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest against the  OP.

            OP is directed to  refund Rs. 5000/- to the complainant along with litigation costs of Rs. 3,000/- within one month from the date of this order, failing which the OP will  be liable to pay Rs. 100/-  daily as punitive charge which will be payable to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

          Let the copy of the judgment be supplied to all the parties free of cost.