DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

1.    Sh.Rakesh Gupta

2.    Sh.Ajay Gupta

       Both son of Sh.Ramesh Kumar Gupta, r/o H.No.393, Sector - 330-A, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

                           V E R S U S

1.    The General Manager, State Bank of India, local Head Office Sector 17-B, Chandigarh.

2.    The Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Sector 1, Parwanoo, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh.

                                  ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:     SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL       PRESIDING MEMBER

                DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA               MEMBER

Argued by:    Sh.Diwan Sharma, Counsel for complainants.

Sh.Yogesh Mohan Sharma, Counsel for OPs.

PER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER

              Briefly stated, the complainants applied for housing loan of Rs.1.20 crore for purchase of H.No.3095, Sector 21-D, Chandigarh, for which, bank sanctioned the loan of Rs.1 Crore but no formal sanction letter containing terms and terms was given to them. The OPs executed certain blank documents on standard proformas of the bank from the complainants and guarantors. They were advised to repay the loan in 240 EMI’s with interest @ 9.5% p.a. (floating). The complainants regularly paid the installments but all of a sudden, the bank debited Rs.3,12,7191/- in their account on 8.3.2011 without any information, notice, authorization and consent of the complainants. The complainants approached the bank vide letter dated 27.5.2011 and the General Manager on 4.7.2011 to take appropriate action but to no effect. The complainant sought certain information under RTI Act vide application dated 10.10.2011 to CPIO and Regional Manager, which was duly replied vide letter dated 21.11.2011. From the perusal of these documents, it has been revealed that the blank documents were got executed from the complainants & guarantors at the time of disbursement of loan and the blank columns of these documents were filled in by the officers of the bank illegally and arbitrarily. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 4.2.2012 to the OPs but to no avail. Hence, this complaint. 

2]           OPs No.1 & 2 filed the joint reply. The preliminary objections vis-à-vis maintainability and jurisdiction were raised. On merits, it has been denied that the bank officials obtained the signatures of the complainants on blank proformas. However, the complainants being educated persons appended their signatures on the loan documents after understanding the same to be true and correct. It has been denied that the complainants were advised to pay interest @ 9.5% p.a. It has been denied that the bank debited Rs.3,12,791/- in the accounts of the complainants on 8.3.2011 without any information, notice, authorization and consent of the complainants. It has been pleaded that bank interest rate applicable to the loan account is floating one and hence, the rates are liable to be changed with the change in the State Bank Advance Rate. In this case, the loan was disbursed on 12.8.2008 with rate of interest being 11% as applicable on that day to this loan for a period of 15 years. However, State Bank Advance Rate revised w.e.f. 12.8.2008 by 1% and the same was not incorporated in the account but the same was payable as the loan was on floating rate. It has been further pleaded that when the case for post facto approval for the loan was being considered by the competent authority, EMI/NMI ratio was exceeded but to accommodate the complainants, the loan was spread over 20 years so that EMI/NMI ratio may come within limit. However, this also increased the interest burden by 0.25%. It has been denied that the blank columns were filled by the bank officials in the bank illegally and arbitrary. The complainants have full knowledge about the same and the bank officials have debited the account with the prior information to the complainants. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service on their part and prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs has been made.  

3]           Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]           We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 

5]           Before determining any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the main question for consideration before us is as to Whether this Forum at Chandigarh, has got the territorial jurisdiction to try & adjudicate this complaint or not.

6]           Admittedly, the complainants had availed loan of Rs.One Crore from OP Bank.  In the letter written to The Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Sector-1, Parwanoo, produced on record at Page No.9 by the complainants, the complainant Rakesh Gupta himself has written that “We have taken a housing loan for Rs.1.00 Crores from you bank as on 12.8.08.  Every month we have been regularly depositing the installment in the said a/c.”    Moreover, the Memorandum of Loan Agreement for Housing Loan, placed at Page No.24, further proves that it has been executed at Parwanoo.  Not only this, the Arrangement Letter – Housing Finance, at Page No.40, also proves that it has been executed at Parwanoo.  Both these documents have also been produced on record by the complainants. 

7]           When the loan in question was granted by Parwanoo Branch, loan agreement and all other documents have also been executed between the parties at Parwanoo Branch, thus it is clear that no cause of action had accrued to the complainants at Chandigarh.  Therefore, this Forum at Chandigarh has got no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.  Merely that the complainants are residents of Chandigarh, in no way, confer any jurisdiction in their favour to file the complaint before this Forum.  Hence, this complaint is not maintainable.

8]           Reliance has been placed on M/s Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. (SC) 2010 (1) RCR Civil (1), wherein it has been held that:-

“Appellants godown caught fire at Ambala – Claim petition under Section 17 filed before Consumer Forum, UT, Chandigarh – Insurance Policy was taken at Ambala and claim for compensation was made at Ambala – No part of cause of action arose at Chandigarh – Hence, Consumer Forum, UT, Chandigarh, has no territorial jurisdiction.”    

9]           Therefore, the above mentioned authority leaves no ground for the maintainability of the present complaint in this Forum.  Henceforth, we are of the opinion that the present complaint is not maintainable.  So, the same is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs.  The complainants are at liberty to approach any appropriate court of competent jurisdiction for redressal of her grievance. 

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.