By Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:-
The Complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the Opposite party to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings for the deficiency in service from the part of Opposite Party in not sanctioning loan to the Complainant.
2. Complaint in brief:- The Complainant applied for a loan for the construction of his house with Opposite party and submitted application along with title deed of 5 cents of property in R.S 229/111 Kalpetta Village, Vythiri Taluk. The Officials of Opposite Party bank inspected the site and promised to sanction a loan of Rs.10,00,000/- to the Complainant. The Complainant's daughter is working at Foreign country. The Complainant's daughter is the loan applicant and pledges the document of the Complainant. The Complainant's daughter came to India for the purpose of getting loan only by spending huge expense and sustaining loss in her work. When the Complainant and his daughter approached the Manager of the bank, the manager denied the loan to the Complainant without stating any reason. The Opposite Party bank actually cheated the Complainant by promising to avail loan. Due to this, the Complainant sustained heavy loss and mental agony. Aggrieved by this, the complaint is filed.
3. On receipt of complaint, notice was issued to Opposite Party and Opposite Party appeared before the Forum and filed version. In the version, the Opposite Party stated that the Opposite party bank is regulated by the rules and regulation of RBI regarding loan disbursement and recovery. The complainant is legally bound to satisfy the bank regarding the repayment capacity and the value of security offered in order to recover the debt in case of default. The Complainant's daughter is legally bound to prove all aspects of employment, taking of leave, reason for a availing leave from the institution. The Complainant was duly informed of the reason for rejecting the application. The market value of landed property is exaggerated as 46,00,000/- By considering all these aspects, the bank rejected the application. So the Complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
4. On perusal of complaint, version and documents the Forum raised the following points for consideration.
1. Whether there is deficiency of service from the part of Opposite parties?
2. Relief and cost.
5. Point No.1:- The Complainant filed proof affidavit and is examined as PW1 and documents are marked as Exts.A1 to A3. The Opposite party also filed proof affidavit and the Opposite Party is examined as OPW1. As per order in IA 418/15 the Opposite party produced documents submitted by the Complainant with Opposite Party for availing loan. On perusal of these documents, the Forum found that the Complainant had submitted all relevant documents with Opposite party to get loan. The OPW1 in his cross examination stated that the documents submitted by the Complainant are send for legal opinion and the Opposite Party bank collected legal opinion for the bank's lawyer and the Complainant paid fees for that purpose also. Moreover , the OPW1 stated that the OPW1 inspected the site and prepared valuation. But it is seen that the OPW1 not produced such records before the Forum. More over , the OPW1 stated that the reason for the rejection of loan is informed to the Complainant over phone. The Complainant specifically stated that the Opposite party bank not stated any reason for the rejection of loan. Here it is found that the Opposite party bank had not produced any details regarding the telephonic information to the Complainant. The Forum is of the opinion that the sanctioning of loan to the Complainant is the sole discretion of the bank considering the value of property, repayment capacity etc. Here on perusal of document, it is found that the Complainant had taken all steps for getting loan from the Opposite party's bank and the Complainant had taken much efforts to get the loan. If the Opposite party is not sanctioning the loan it should be informed to the complaint well in advance with clear reasons in black and white. The Forum found that the Opposite Party failed to prove that the Opposite party informed the Complainant about the rejection of loan in time and on rejection, to return the documents to the Complainant in time. The Complainant was compelled to file separate IA 418/15 for the production of documents. So the Forum found that the act of Opposite party is nothing but deficiency of service from the part of Opposite Party. Point No.1 is found accordingly.
6. Point No.2:- Since point No.1 is found in favour of Complainant, the Complainant is entitled to get cost and compensation.
In the result, the Complaint is partly allowed and the Opposite party is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only as compensation for the mental agony, hardships and loss sustained to the Complainant and Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand) only as cost of the proceedings. The Opposite Party is directed to comply the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the Complainant is entitled to get 12% interest for the whole sum. The Complainant is at liberty to take back the documents produced by the Opposite party before the Forum pertaining to his property.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of September 2015.
Date of Filing:30.03.2015.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:
PW1. Muhammed Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:
OPW1. Abhilash. P.J Bank Manager, SIB, Kalpetta.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Copy of Deed. dt:23.06.1995.
A2. Copy of Deed. dt:14.07.2010.
A3. Copy of Power of Attorney. dt:24.01.2006.
Exhibits for the opposite Parties.
Nil.
