Orissa

Rayagada

CC/148/2019

Sri Udaya Chandra Ulaka - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Sri Pradeep Dash

02 Dec 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAYAGADA,

AT:  KASTURI NAGAR, Ist.  LANE,   L.I.C. OFFICE     BACK,PO/DIST: RAYAGADA, STATE:  ODISHA, PIN NO.765001,.E-mail- dcdrfrgda@gmail.com

…

 

C.C.CASE  NO.__148_______/2019                                    Date.   26.8. .2022.

  

P R E S E N T .

 

Dr   Aswini  Kumar  Mohapatra,                                    President.

Sri   Satis  Kumar  Panigrahi.                                           Member

 

Sri   Udaya  Chandra   Ulaka,  S/O: Late  Prahallad Ulaka,  At:Kapilapur, Po:Gunupur, Dist:Rayagada, 765  022, (Odisha).

                                                                        ….  Complainant.

Versus.

 

1.The Branch Manager, State Bank of India,  Main Branch, At:Marathiguda, Gunupur, 765 022, Dist:Rayagada.

 

2.The Regional  Manager, State Bank of India, At:Saipriya Nagar,  Rayagada.

3.The General  Manager,  State Bank of India,  Bhubaneswar.

                                                                        …Opposite  Parties.

 

 

For the Complainant:- Self.

For the  O.Ps:- Sri  S. Ganapati  Rao, and associates .

 

 

JUDGEMENT

 

The  crux of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for  non sanction  of housing  loan in favour of the complainant  for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant. 

Upon  Notice, the O.P No.1    put in their appearance and on behalf of  other two O.Ps  and filed  written version  through  their  learned counsel  in which  they refuting allegation made against them.  The O.Ps    taking one and another pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act,  The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.P.   Hence the O.Ps prays the District Commission  to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

Heard the case and  arguments from the learned counsels for the    O.P    and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

This commission   examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                    FINDINGS.

Undisputedly  the complainant is a   Saving bank  account  holder bearing account No.  30519708513 of  the   O.P. No.1  branch  since long.

It is admitted fact that the complainant is a regular  bonafide  customer of the O.P (Bank)  having dealing with financial transaction.

The   grievance of the complainant in this complaint was that the  banks which formed a consortium for grant of loan, have  not released the sanctioned housing  loan   after submitted all the documents .  That the bank in blatant abuse of power  and without  giving any reasons, refused to disburse the loan. This has caused  mental  agony  to the complainant.

The O.Ps  in their written version contended that  the complainant  highly  disqualified by the banking norms and regulations  in the eyes  of CIBIL, which qualifies  the intended   borrower as eligibility  to avail   loan before  sanction of the transaction   CIBIL score procured  in the name  of the complainant    shall do form  in full to this written pleadings.  Further the O.Ps   contended  that the chart transaction CIBIL in the name of the complainant  dated. 22.8.2019 shows that his personal  loan towards  repayment  highly irregular  which indicates that is sheer violation to the terms and conditions of the personal  loan amount.

The O.Ps are   taking one and another pleas in the written version and sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act.

The  O.Ps though mentioned in the counter copies of the CIBIL score enclosed, but the said copy of the   CIBIL score   is not herewith filed. The main plea of the O.Ps regarding non sanction of the loan based on the CIBIL score.  But  the O.P neither produced  the copies of the CIBIL score nor  proved the case by producing  certain documents in their favour..

The  O.Ps in their  written version  contended that  the case is not maintainable before the  District Commission.

For  better  appreciation this District Commission  relied  citations of  Hon’ble State CDR Commission, Cuttack.

The  O.P. agencies have been constituted     with a view to rendering financial assistance to deserving  applicants  for construction of house for  livelihood.  It has been observed by the Hon’ble  Odisha State Commission, Cuttack in the case of Ravindra Kumar Das  Vrs.  M.D., O.S.F.C., reported in CPJ 1991 (2) page No.  344 that financial  assistance  is a service  rendered  for which a borrower  pays interest.  Thus within the broad meaning  of consumer and service, such service is for  hire.  Any deficiency in service  comes within the scope of the C.P. Act.  Although special forums  have been created under the  Act  to render assistance to the  Corporation, no forum  under the Act has been created  to mitigate the grievances of a borrower or intending borrower.  In such circumstances, the  Hon’ble  Odisha State Commission is of the view that  the beneficial  provisions under the Act  gives the Commission   wide power to examine   deficiency in service  in respect of a legitmate grievance  of a consumer who  has complained before the   District  Commission.

Basing on the citation cited above the case is maintainable before the District Commission.

Now we have to see whether there was any  negligence  on the part of the O.Ps in treating the complainant as alleged ?

 

Undisputedly   on the  direction  of the  O.P No.1  the complainant on Dt.  16.8.2019   had submitted  all the papers, documents  to the O.P. No.1  for sanction of   housing loan.    Undisputedly the complainant  and his wife  are    Govt.  employee.   Generally  when  the complainant  and his wife  are  Govt. employees  recovery of loan  amount from the  complainant  are  easy  to the bank. 

Principle would be applicable to find out deficiency  in service by a bank in not disbursing the  housing loan  to the complainant on such promise the complainant  has proceeded further  and  had invested a large  amount.  The officers  of the banks can not commit breach of the contract or promise to give  loan arbitrarily or malafide or oblique motive.

It is the allegation of the complainant that refusal to  sanction  housing  loan   was  malafide.   It certainly reveal  serious lapses and deficiency on the part of the  officers  of the  concerned banks in discharge of their  duties.

During the course of hearing the complainant  is present in person and  submitted that  now  he is  interested to take housing  loan from  the  O.P. (Bank)  to complete the  house  work.

But the complainant  has  failed  to submit any  documentary evidence to prove his case as he had  submitted  all  his original documents to the O.P. No.1 for sanction of the housing loan. So there is no question  of  any direction to the O.P. No.1  to return the documents of the complainant  to him.  

On the other hand the O.P. No.1 contended  that the complainant had not submitted any original  documents  and  never approached  O.P.( Bank) for sanction of a loan .

Considering the above facts, circumstances  and evidence on  record  avoiding  hyper technicalities  of terms and condition  of  loan agreement and evidence on record,  it is  felt that    Govt.  employees   needs to be encourage  to set  up   his unit.   The O.Ps have already  in an advantage to realize  the loan amount with interest  from  the complainant sooner  or later.

In view of the above, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances inter alia material on record this  District  commission  considered view that the complainant is entitled  to get  housing loan  from  the bank.

 

The preliminary objection regarding maintainability before the District Commission   which are made objection by way of  written version by the O.Ps.    in  the present  case is rejected. But  in the foregoing  circumstances  & with the  above observation  it appears just and proper being   the  C.P. Act is benevolent  welfare legislation to decide the matter  the following  orders  passed for the best  interest  of justice.

In view of the above discussion relating to the above case and  In Res-IPSA-Loquiture  as well as  in the light of the settled legal position  discussed  as above referring citations the plea of the  O.Ps to avoid the claim  which is Aliance Juris. Hence  we allow the above complaint petition  in part.

 

Hence  to  meet the  ends of justice, the following order is passed.

 

     ORDER. 

In resultant  the complaint petition is allowed in part  on contest against  the O.Ps.

The complainant  is directed  to submit all the required documents, bank details, Salary  certificate, Identity proof  and necessary  papers for sanction of a loan  before the bank authority  with a loan application if wants to  take  a housing loan.

The  O.Ps  are directed   to  verify  the loan application form and required documents submitted by the complainant  if   the intended complaint  qualifies  by the banking norms and regulations in the eyes  CIBIL score  then may sanction  housing loan in favour  of the complainant. 

 Parties  are left  to bear their own cost.

The entire directions shall be carried out with in 45 days from the  date of receipt   of this order.  Service the copies of the order to the parties   as per rule.

Dictated and  corrected  by me.

                Pronounced in the open   Commission   on               26^th.   day of       August, 2022.

 

MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT