Present         (1)      Nisha Nath Ojha,   

                              District & Sessions Judge (Retd.)                                                                                President

                    (2)      Smt. Karishma Mandal,

                              Member                 

Date of Order :

                    Smt. Karishma Mandal

1. In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite parties:-

1. To direct the opposite parties to pay the compensation for recurring damages caused to him and for his mental agony and harassment by paying him Rs. 4,00,000/- and also for the cost of litigation.

2. Brief facts of the case which led to the filing of complaint are as follows:-

1. The complainant is a farmer as well as Industrialist and he submitted a loan proposal to the opposite party no. 2 due to die necessity of the loan amount for enhancement of the production in the factory situated at Ranchi in the name and style of M/s Raj Cable Industries which is situated at Ketari Bagan, Chutia, Ranchi – 10.
2. The enhancement in production is required to compete in the market with other competitor and create a good will and reputation of the product in the market and also to increase the income of the employee of the factory and also to increase his income to uplift the standard of his sons life and livelihood.
3. After submitting the loan proposal the Bank Manager and other officers advice him to submit other relevant documents for sanctioning the loan amount and for getting legal opinion from their counsel.
4. On the advice of Bank Officials the complainant also paid the fee of their counsel for submitting the legal opinion to the Bank.
5. The counsel of the bank submitted his legal opinion to the Bank on full satisfaction after the verification of the relevant documents submitted by the complainant. ( Vide Annexure – 1 )
6. The Bank returned the said proposal on 13.10.2006 and the complainant again resubmitted the proposal as per the advice of Bank Officers and for their satisfaction.
7. After resubmitting the said proposal the Bank officers  kept mum for a long a time and when the complainant approached to the Bank Officers they intimated verbally for rejecting his proposal.
8. The complainant dissatisfied with the attitude of the bank Officers he sent his application to the banking Ombudsman, Biscoman Patna on 19.02.2007 to recommend for sanctioning the loan and copy forwarded to opposite parties. ( Vide Annexure – 2A and 2B )
9. After a long time Bank Officers did not responded positively then the complainant demanded his original documents related with his land but the Bank Officers did not returned the original documents to the complainant.
10. The complainant became unable to submit his proposal for loan to the others bank without original document of the land which was submitted to the opposite parties.
11. After repeated request the opposite parties did not incline to returned the original documents to the complainant and into this way they are causing a great loss monetary as well as loss of reputation and good will in the market.
12. The complainant became handicapped by the opposite parties to submit his loan proposal to the other Bank in the absence of original document of the land.
13. Till date the opposite party no. 2 has not returned the original documents to the complainant and in this way they are harassing the complainant.
14. The opposite parties are liable to returned the original documents of the land to the complainant as per the law of land and the deficiency in service and is a clear case of gross negligence of opposite parties and also undue delay to return the original documents of land to the complainant is a clear case of deficiency in service and negligence in duties.
15. The opposite parties are deliberately and wilfully avoiding to return the original documents of the land to the complainant and as such the opposite parties are liable to pay the compensation for recurring damages caused to him and for his mental agony and harassment by paying him Rs. 4 Lakhs and also for the cost of litigation.

3. The Opposite Party no. 1 and 2 in their written statement has submitted as follows :-

1. The complainant has filed the instant case before this learned forum seeking grant of illegal and imaginary reliefs claims against these opposite parties.
2. The above noted complaint case is framed and filled has no legs to stand in the eye of law and also on facts and deserves no consideration at all by the learned forum and is fit to be dismissed summarily.
3. As alleged, there is no deficiency or latches on the part of these opposite parties in service to the complainant.
4. The complainant has filed the instant case for such relief which does not come under the Consumer Protection Act.
5. Obviously from the averments made in instant complaint, the complainant has no right and or locus – stands to file the present complaint and to claim any amount of as compensation from these opposite parties at all.
6. The instant complaint being frivolous has been filed by the complainant with ulterior motive to give undue pressure on the opposite party no. 2 to achieve his illegal designs and goal and is fit to be dismissed as provided under Section 26 of the Consumer protection Act.
7. With regard to averments made in paragraph no. 1 and 2 of the petition of complaint under reply, the same are only factual details of the complainant and not within the knowledge of the opposite party and needs no comment.
8. With regard to statements made in paragraph no. 3, 4 and 5 of the complaint petition, under reply, it is simply a procedure on receipt of a proposal for loan from Borrower, a legal opinion is sought from the Bank’s Panel lawyer about the genuineness and legal validity of the papers, only to enable the concerned bank authorities to further proceed in the matter and all contrary statements made therein are denied.
9. With regard to statements made in paragraph nos. 6, 7 and 8, of the complaint petition under reply, the same are correct to the extent that the opposite party bank after examining the viability of the project, and the concerned papers, in respect of properties offered in Guarantee as collateral security for repayment of the loan amount, being not acceptable to the bank as per its Guidelines for sanction of loan, this opposite party no. 1 rightly rejected the loan proposal of the complainant and all contrary statements made are wholly incorrect, false and are denied. It is settled by various judicial pronouncements that it is for the financial Institution/ bank to decide whether loan to any incumbent/ borrower, after taking in consideration all factors, viability and probability of realisation etc. and non – sanction of loan by the Bank / Financial Institution is not deficiency in service and it is the discretion of the opposite party/ bank to grant loan to the borrower. Reliance placed on the decision reported in

1. III 1993 C.P.J. 322 (NC)
2. III 1993 CPJ 1359
3. III 1992 C.P.J. 94

10. With regards to statements made in paragraph no. 9 to 15 of the complaint petition under reply, the same are wholly misconceived, false, absurd and strongly denied by this opposite party. It is stated that the Bank only required submissions of original related papers/documents, from the concerned borrower after sanctioning of the proposed loan at the time of execution of loan documents in favour of the bank in respect of the proposed loan and not at all before sanctioning and execution of the loan documents in favour of the bank, which fact fully exposes the malafide and falsehood of the complainant as admittedly the loan proposal was not at all acceptable and rejected by the bank. It is purely a illegal design of the complainant to give undue pressure on the bank, authorities to achieve his illegal goal and nothing more and thus makes the complainant liable for penal actions therefore on this learned forum and payment of exemplary cost to the opposite party bank to cheque curb this illegal practices and designs to enable the concerned authorities of the bank/ Financial Institution to discharge their duties independently in accordance with prescribed Guidelines under the law. All contrary statements and claim of payment of compensation are strongly denied this opposite party bank as above said.
11. It is essential to mention here that the complainant left nothing unturned and had adopted all method to give undue pressure on bank authorities and in furtherance whereof, he did not even hesitate in levelling a wild allegations against the bank officials, in his written application submitted to the banking , Patna. The copy whereof was sent to Regional officer of opposite party Bank and which on necessary enquiry, was found to be wholly false and baseless and had been engineered for the purpose of the case and nothing more.

Since, at no point of time the original documents was ever demanded and received by this opposite party no. 2 as there being no occasion for the same due to rejection of the loan proposal at the initial stage itself, the question of return of any original documents as alleged in the petition of complaint does not arise.

12. In view of the facts and circumstances as stated above, the instant complaint case is not at all maintainable under the law and is fit to be dismissed with exemplary cost to these opposite parties.
13. These opposite parties reserve their right to file additional written statement if needed.
14. The statements which have not been specially admitted be deemed to have been denied by these opposite parties.

4. Rejoinder on behalf of the complainant, to the Written Statement filed on behalf of opposite party no. 1 and 2.

1. The statements made in Paragraph no. 1 and 2 of the written statement are totally wrong, false and misleading, as is apparent from the face of the record itself, hence denied. It is submitted that the complainant is legally entitled for the relief, as prayed for, in the complaint petition.
2. The statement made in Paragraph no. 3 of the written statement is also totally wrong, false and misleading hence denied. In this context it is submitted that the deficiency and latches, on the part of the opposite parties, particularly that of opposite party no. 1 and 2, are clearly apparent from the face of the record itself, hence need no further elaboration.
3. The statements made in paragraph no. 4 and 5 of the written statement are also totally wrong, false and misleading hence denied. In this context it is submitted that the relief as prayed for by the complainant, is within the perview of the Consumer Protection Act and the complainant is legally entitled for the relief, including compensation and cost, as prayed for in the complaint.
4. The statements made in paragraph no. 6 of the written statement, is also wrong, false and misleading hence denied. In this context it is submitted that the opposite party no. 1 and 2, have made such false and frivolous statement, in order to somehow deny the genuine and legal entitlement of the complainant and to defy the course of justice, which cannot in any event sustain in the eye of law.
5. With respect to the statement made in paragraph no. 7 of the written statement, it is submitted that by stating “ Need no reply ”, the answering opposite parties have virtually accepted the facts as stated in paragraph no. 1 and 2 of the complaint petition.
6. With respect to the statement made in paragraph no. 8 of the written statement, it is submitted that the answering opposite parties, have nowhere denied the genuineness of the facts as stated in paragraph no. 3, 4 and 5 of the complaint petition. Moreover the statement, as made in the said paragraph cannot in any event deny the facts, as stated by the complainant, in paragraph no. 3, 4 and 5 of the complaint petition, as such the complainant is legally entitled for the relief, as prayed for in the complaint petition.
7. With respect to the statements made in paragraph no. 9 of the written statement, it is submitted that the answering opposite parties, have nowhere specially denied the facts as stated in paragraph no. 6, 7 and 8 of the complaint petition, as such be taken as acceptance by the answering opposite parties. It is submitted that the deficiency and latches on the part of the opposite party no. 1 and 2, is writ large on the face of the record itself, as such the complainant is legally entitled to the relief as prayed for in the complaint petition.
8. The statements made in paragraph no. 10 of the written statement are totally wrong, false and misleading hence denied. In this context it is submitted that the answering opposite parties have not at all specially denied the fact as stated in paragraph no. 9 of the complaint petition. It is submitted that the original documents of the complainant is still in the possession of the opposite party no. 2 and the same has not yet been returned to the complainant despite his repeated representation and persuasions, which is clearly apparent from the face of the record itself. In this context it is further submitted that the complainant has been put to great suffering, without his any fault, on two counts, firstly despite being legally entitles, loan has not been sanctioned, only for extraneous considerations and secondly documents have not yet been returned to the complainant till date, only with ulterior motive, as such the complainant is legally entitled for the relief, as prayed for in the complaint petition.
9. The statements made in paragraph no. 11 of the written statement are totally wrong, false and misleading hence denied. In this context it is submitted that the answering opposite parties, have somehow tried, to save their skin, for the deficiency and latches, they have committed, apart to the harassment caused to the complainant, including the monetary loss, without his any fault. In this context it is further submitted that the enquiry report of the enquiry conducted by the opposite party no. 3 or by the Bank, may be called for, from the opposite parties, by this forum, in the interest of justice and fair play.

The statement made in second part of the paragraph no. 11 of the written statement is totally wrong, false and misleading hence denied. It is reiterated and submitted that the opposite party no. 1 and 2, have illegally, arbitrarily and malafidely, have not yet returned the original documents of the complainant, only for extraneous consideration, as is clearly apparent from the face of the record itself.

10. The statement made in paragraph no. 12, of the written statement is totally wrong, false and misleading hence denied. In this context it is reiterated and submitted that the complainant is legally entitled for the relief, as prayed for in the complaint petition.
11. The statements made in paragraph no. 13 and 14 of the written statement are matter of record hence need no reply.

                                                  Member                                                             President