BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

SRI.  P.V. JAYARAJAN                              :           PRESIDENT

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR                           :           MEMBER

SRI. VIJU  V.R.                                             :           MEMBER

C.C.No. 411/2015 Filed on 01/09/2015

ORDER DATED: 12/05/2022

ORDER

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR: MEMBER

This is a complaint filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 and the matter stood over to this date for consideration.After hearing the matter the commission passed an order as follows:

The complainant has approached the 1^st opposite party, who is the Manager of the Union Bank of India Harippad Branch for an Education Loan for his son Mathew Janet Varghese to undergo higher studies in Construction Project Managerment in Canada.  The complainant after apprising the details with the 1^st opposite party specifically informed that the application need be accepted only if the loan can be sanctioned and released within the stipulated deadline dates, otherwise the entire admission procedure will be futile.  The 1^st opposite party after convincing the details and first phase of deadline dates ie. 10/11/2014 and 21/11/2014 agreed to sanction and pay the loan on acceptable security within the stipulated date if application is submitted without delay.  Accordingly the complainant submitted on 24/10/2014 the application accompanied by letter of acceptance showing course details, fee details and living expenses the deadline dates etc along with the title deeds relating to the proposed security property jointly owned by the petitioner and his wife Dr.Janet Varghese who is working as Gynecologist at Salala, Sulthante of Oman.  During the legal scrutiny and processing of the application, 1^st opposite party has not raised any objection or query and as the security was found acceptable informed the complainant that the file is ready for documentation and therefore directed to come and execute the mortgage and sign the necessary agreements.  Immediately on this information from 1^st opposite party the complainant informed his wife Dr.Janet who is working at Salala to come urgently for a short visit to Kerala to sign the mortgage and connected documents.  In view of the urgent communication to the petitioner’s wife who is the co mortgagor arranged a short visit to Kerala by emergency travel by fight.  On 06/11/2014 early morning she arrived at Trivnadrum Airport and from Tvm to Harippad Travelled by car.  On reaching Harippad the complainant, wife and son jointly called at the branch and created equitable mortgage by deposit of title deed and signed loan agreement/undertakings/DBC and related papers etc. as directed by 1^st opposite party and she left Kerala on the morning of 09/11/2014.  Meanwhile 1^st opposite party in consultation with Regional Office suggested to make arrangements remit the first installment of tuition fee directly as the loan is to be sanctioned/approved by RO Thiruvananthapuram and that the amount could be reimbursed from the loan amount and assured that the sanction/approval will be completed within the stipulated period at any cost. To avoid delay and risk, relying on the assurance the complainant managed to remit the first installment of fee directly through HDFC Bank before the stipulated dated 10/11/2014.  Thereafter the complainant was constantly in touch with the 1^st opposite party at Harippad and 2 at Thiruvananthapuram to remind the dead line date over phone and in person to avoid delay at any rate.  Even though 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties assured payment of loan at any before 21/11/2014 no communication received at branch or by the complainant till 3.30 pm 21/11/2014 ie. The closing hours of the Banking transactions.  That the complainant with dismay and anguish noted the inordinate delay in sanctioning the loan as a deceptive practice, which is not expected from a nationalized Bank like Union Bank of India.  Therefore the complainant was constrained to drop the deal of loan transaction with the bank as the dead line date came to a close.  The Bank on a later date returned the documents, original/copy of signed loan agreement and related records the delay in action amounts to gross negligence and corruptive practice on the part of opposite parties which caused untold miseries, and agony to the complainant and his family.  The complainant caused to issue a legal notice dated 19/05/2015 to pay compensation.  The opposite parties accepted the notice and sent a reply through their advocate defending their omission/lapses and suppressing the facts denying the legitimate claim of the complainant.  Hence the complaint.

Version filed by the 1^st to 3^rd opposite parties.  The consumer case is not maintainable either on facts or law.  It is partly true that the complainant had approached the 1^st opposite party for an education loan with respect to his son’s higher studies.  However he had not specified about the time limit and these opposite parties can never give anybody any assurance as they have to comply with all their formalities with regard to lending in respect of a loan transaction.  The opposite parties stated that the discretion to grant loan is vested with the financier and decision in that regard is taken on the basis of the credit appraisal conducted by the sanctioning authority.  The real facts are as follows that forwarding of the loan application and connected papers to the sanctioning authority of my client was put to the notice of your client; that the sanctioning authority had sanctioned the loan on 20/11/2014; that on receipt of the sanction order of the sanctioning authority, the opposite parties has informed the complainant on 21/11/2014 about the sanction of the loan; that the complainant without any reason whatsoever had declined to avail the loan on flimsy grounds.  That as per scheme of remittance of the 2^nd semester is on 01/03/2015.  The opposite parties had acted in the matter in their official capacity without any bias and all the allegations to the contrary are totally baseless.  The complainant had not suffered any loss in the matter and allegations to the contrary are all baseless.  If the complainant wanted the loan he could avail the same within the time frame for the second semester fee formulated by the Educational Institution and the same was not done by him.  The real facts of the case is that when the loan was sanctioned it was the complainant who had wriggled out of the transaction since he had arranged other finance and was avail by him.  The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties are unnecessarily impleaded by the complainant in this case.  There is no deficiency at all in this case and there is no consumer relationship, since the complainant nor his son not wife have been loanees with this opposite party/Bank so as to invite a consumer dispute or a consumer relationship.

The case was taken up for evidence and the complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext.P1 to P11 were marked and he was cross examined.After closing the complainant’s evidence the opposite parties were given sufficient opportunities to adduce their part of evidence, even in spite of adjourning case to several posting dates and imposing cost twice, the opposite party did not turn up for cross examination till the date of last chance on 06/02/2020 and no evidence is adduced on their part.Both parties filed argument notes.

Issues to be considered are:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. If so, what is the cost and relief?

Issues No.1&2:- The opposite party has contended that there is no consumer relationship and there is no consumer dispute.  Anyone who approaches the bank for availing a loan is a customer of the bank on having accepted the application and executing necessary document and definitely there is customer relationship with the Bank.  The complainant along with his son are account holders.  The dispute has arisen when negligence and deficiency occurred in the processing of application within the stipulated date.  Hence it can be safely concluded that there is customer relationship and a consumer dispute has arisen between the customer and Bank.  The complainant approached the Bank with the application for Education loan on 24/10/2014.  The application was scrutinized and processed by the 1^st opposite party and on satisfying the sufficiency and acceptability of the security informed the complainant that the file is ready for documentation and to contact the bank for executing the documents.  Accordingly on 06/11/2014, his son who is the applicant, complainant and his wife Dr.Janet Varghese who are the co obligants jointly called at the Bank and crated equitable mortgage by depositing of title deeds and executed necessary agreements for the loan applied.  The wife of the complainant Dr.Janet Varghese who is working at Salala came on an emergency leave on 06/11/2014 solely for the purpose of signing the documents before the Bank.  After the execution of the agreements and connected documents the 1^st opposite party apprised the complainant that the file requires the approval/sanction of the 2^nd opposite party and the file is forwarding to the 2^nd opposite party.  It is admitted by the 1^st opposite party that the file was submitted to the 2^nd opposite party on 08/11/2014 where it was received on 10/11/2014.  Since 2^nd opposite party was busy with training program on 10 & 11^th and due to Bank strike on 12^th the concerned officer received the proposal on 13/11/2014 only as evidenced by the Ext.P8.  But to support the statement that there was training, bank strike on those days no documentary evidence is seen produced without which the contentions cannot be accepted but as per Ext.P8 issued by 1^st opposite party sanction reached the bank only on 21/11/2014 at about 4 pm.  But there is no explanation why the delay of 8 days occurred form 13/11/2014 to 21/11/2014 in spite of apprising the Bank that the very purpose of the loan will be defeated if it is not sanctioned and disbursed before the deadline date 21/11/2014 fixed for the remittance of living expenses included in the 1^st phase remittance along with 1^st semester fee.  Even though they admitted having sanctioned the loan on 20/11/2014 there is no documentary evidence to support from the side of the opposite party.  In view of the above facts, the negligence, latches and dereliction on the part of the Bank is clearly made out which is a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.  The opposite parties has raised a contention that the dead line date of fee remittance is 28/11/2014, therefore there is no delay.  But no where it is stated by the complainant in his complaint or in deposition that the cutoff date is 28/11/2014.  It is only to escape from the liability such a contention is raised, but without any support of evidence.  The first phase of remittance of fee includes 2 parts with a deadline date of 1^st semester fee on 10/11/2014 as per Ext.P2 and remittance of living expense on 21/11/2014 as per Ext.P3, through student GIC program of Scotia Bank for obtaining study permit.  There was no communication or information to the complainant leaving him in dark about the sanction/disbursal of the loan till the banking hours of the deadline date 21/11/2014 as is evident from Ext.P8 constraining him to run pillar to post to raise fund from other sources to avoid the risk.  The complainant has produced Ext.P7 series & P11 to prove the part expenses incurred by him in the transaction including legal expenses for the loan security.  The Ext.P10 series shows the details of the flight tickets and flight charges amounting to 98 Omani Riyals included in the total travel expenses.  The complainant suffered hardships/sufferings and mental agony as there was inordinate delay in the sanctioning of loan and its payment in time.  In the above discussion we find that the act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service.

In the result complaint is partly allowed.  We direct the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) as compensation and Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant, within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount except cost shall carry 9% interest from the date of order till the date of payment/realization.            

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Court, this the 12^th day of May,  2022.

R

C.C. No. 411/2015

APPENDIX

1. COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

2. COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

3. OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

4. OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

                                                                                                                                                            Sd/-

PRESIDENT