Kerala

Malappuram

CC/06/48

EZEKKIEL, BLESS VILLA - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., REGIONEL OFFICE - Opp.Party(s)

31 Jan 2008

ORDER


DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
MALAPPURAM
consumer case(CC) No. CC/06/48

EZEKKIEL, BLESS VILLA
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., REGIONEL OFFICE
THE MANAGER, THE FEDERAL BANK LTD.
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI 2. K.T. SIDHIQ

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President, 1. The case of the complainant is that he applied for a loan with 2nd opposite party for the purpose of compling construction of the 1st floor of his building and also in connection with higher studies of his son at Mumbai. Opposite party did not sanction the loan and hence the complaint. 2. Opposite party filed version specifically denying the allegations in the complaint. Opposite party admits that the complainant had applied for loan. It is stated that the loan was not sanctioned because the complainant was not able to prove with reliable documents his repaying capacity. That there is no deficiency in service. 3. Evidence in this case consists of the affidavits filed by both sides. Exts.A1 to A12 marked on the side of the complainant. No documents marked on the side of opposite parties. Either sides have not adduced any oral evidence. 4. The points that arise for consideration are: (i) Whether opposite party has committed any deficiency in service? (ii) If so reliefs and costs. 5. Point (i):- Complainant is aggrieved that the loan applied for was not sanctioned by second opposite party even though he complied with all the formalities. Ext.A1 is the receipt for legal scrutiny fee paid by complainant. Ext.A2 is the Salary Certificate of Elizabath John, wife of the complainant. The date of retirement in Ext.A2 is 30-4-2007. Opposite party has affirmed that after scrutiny of the documents produced by the complainant opposite party asked to complainant to produce his salary certificate. Complainant produced the salary certificate of his wife and did not submit his salary certificate. It is also submitted that the value of the assets and the salary of co-obliger has no importance when the borrower himself does not have repaying capacity. Counsel for opposite party submitted that the loan application was rejected because the complainant was not able to prove his repaying capacity with reliable documents. That the prior dealings of the complainant with the opposite party bank also made opposite party arrive at a decision not to sanction the loan. 6. In a catena of cases the Hon'ble National Commission has held sanctioning of the loan is within the discretion of the bank and the non sanctioning of the loan will not amount to deficiency in service. Applying the principles laid in Velappan Nair, Manager, Kerala State Co-operative Bank and another Vs. K.P.Suran 2004 CTJ 35 (CP)NCDRC where it is held that “Sanctioning of loan amount is within the discretion of the bank and a borrower cannot have any vested right of being sanctioned the loan applied by him. We hold that the act of opposite party in not sanctioning the loan does not amount to deficiency in service. 7. Point (ii):- In the light of the above discussion this point found against the complainant. 8. In the result we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs. Dated this 31st day of January, 2008. C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT K.T.SIDHIQ, MEMBER APPENDIX Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A12 Ext.A1 : Receipt for Rs.375/- dated, 6-7-2005 for legal scrutiny fee paid by complainant. Ext.A2 : Salary Certificate of Elizabath John, wife of the complainant dated, 28-6-2005. Ext.A3 : Letter dated, 27-7-2005 by complainant to first opposite party regarding rejection of loan application. Ext.A4 : Reply letter dated, 16-8-2005 issued by first opposite party to complainant. Ext.A5 : Carbon copy of the lawyer notice dated, 09-11-2005. Ext.A6 : Bill for Rs.27815/- for purchasing materials. Ext.A7 : Legal scrutiny report dated, 6-7-2005. Ext.A8 : Non judicial stamp paper purchased by the complainant. Ext.A9 : Pocket account book. Ext.A10 : Photo copy of the building permit. Ext.A11 : Application for Encumbrance Certificate. Ext.A12 : Pass book. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT K.T.SIDHIQ, MEMBER




......................C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI
......................K.T. SIDHIQ