DATE OF FILING : 6.3.2015
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 31st day of January, 2017
Present :
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT
SRI. BENNY. K. MEMBER
CC NO.89/2015
Between
Complainant : Sethu Lakshmi,
Jayabhavan,
Karunapuram P.O.,
Kampammettu, Idukki.
(By Adv: V.C. Sebastian)
And
Opposite Parties : 1. The Manager,
Mahindra & Mahindra Financial
Services Ltd.,
Thrikkakkara P.O.,
Kakkanadu, Kochi – 682 021.
2. The Manager,
Mahindra & Mahindra Financial
Services Ltd.,
Erattayar Road, Kattappana P.O.,
Idukki.
O R D E R
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT
Complainant, a school teacher had bought a 2009 model Tata Indica car at Rs.1,25,000/- from one Santhosh, who deal in vehicle business. Complainant paid Rs.40000/- in cash and opposite party and the said Santhosh had agreed to arrange a HP loan from the opposite parties. Complainant and her husband contacted the 2nd opposite party through one Thomas who was the field executive of opposite party and 2nd opposite party also agreed to arrange HP loan. 2nd opposite party agreed to sanction Rs.85000/- and requested to pay Rs.7000/- as initial payment and also Rs.4300/- as EMI of 23 instalments. 2nd opposite party demanded signed blank cheque leaves and other papers also. Complainant has registered the
(cont......2)
- 2 -
said vehicle in her name and HP agreement recorded in the RC Book and all other formalities were complied. As per the request of the opposite parties, 4 signed blank cheque leaves from complainant’s account in SBT Thookkupalam branch and title deed, copies of electricity and telephone bill, insurance certificate copy and copy of RC Book, all were given to opposite party. Opposite party had agreed to send the loan amount as DD at the earliest and 1st opposite party had verified the loan details over phone on 30.12.2014. But opposite parties have never taken any step to release the loan amount in spite of frequent requests and complainant has to suffer many hardships due to the act of opposite parties. The deficiency in service from the act of opposite parties and also mental agony suffered by the complainant are to be compensated. Opposite party may be directed to allow the loan amount without delay.
Written version filed for both parties and denied all allegations of the complainant. Opposite parties stated that the husband of the complainant Ramesh is a vehicle broker and on his recommendations, loans were sanctioned, but none was repaid. When a new manager took charge at 2nd opposite party’s office, complainant and her husband approached him for a vehicle loan. But on perusing the background of the complainant, it was found that complainant and husband were cheats and no loan amount was disbursed. At the time of loan application, they intentionally hide the fact that he is the husband of the complainant and also produced two other persons as guarantors. The amount received from the complainant was returned to the complainant on 9.1.2015 through her account No.67227987864) of SBT Thookkupalam branch. The allegations that opposite parties received blank signed cheque leaves and other papers are denied by opposite parties. Opposite parties further aver that it is the discretion of the bank to sanction a loan or not, to a loanee who, the bank thinks will not repay the same. Since there is no deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties, this complaint may be dismissed.
(cont......3)
- 3 -
The point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
Oral and documentary evidence adduced by both parties. Exts.P1 to P3 and Ext.R1 marked from the part of complainant and opposite parties respectively.
The POINT ;- Husband of the complainant was examined as PW1. Complainant alleges that opposite parties had agreed to sanction a HP loan of Rs.85000/- in order to purchase a 2009 model Tata Indica car, worth Rs.1,25,000/-. Complainant registered the vehicle in her name and HP agreement was entered in RC Book. As per the request of opposite parties, 4 signed blank cheque leaves, copies of title deed, electricity and telephone bills insurance certificate copy and copy of RC book etc. were entrusted with opposite parties. Opposite parties agreed to disburse the loan amount as DD but till date, 3rd opposite party has never taken any steps to disburse the loan. Copy of electronic clearing service is marked as Ext.P1. copy of RC Book marked as Ext.P2. copy of insurance policy certificate is marked as Ext.P3.
2nd Opposite party manager is examined as DW1 and aver that complainant’s husband was a defaulter in the loan taken from opposite party. System print out of master entry is marked as Ext.R1 and the copy of online transfer of the amount is marked as Ext.D1. Complainant and her husband applied for the disputed loan by hiding the fact that he is complainant’s husband. When the opposite parties realized the fraud activity, they denied the loan, which is the discretion of the bank. The amount received from the complainant was returned through her account No.67227987864 in SBT Thookkupalam branch. On 9.1.2015, No documents as alleged by the complainant were entrusted with opposite party. There is no deficiency from the part of opposite parties.
(cont......4)
- 4 -
On perusing Ext.P1, complainant was sanctioned the HP loan. As per Ext.P1 and the HP loan was recorded in RC Book, proved through Ext.P2. DW1 admitted the receipt of documents entrusted by the complainant with 2nd opposite party. DW1 also submitted that they had received Rs.5980/- from the complainant. DW1 also added, they used to charge loan processing charges.
On perusing the oral and documentary evidence, we the Forum finds that it is not just and fair to deny the loan after completing all the formalities. PW1 stated that "HP loan is recorded in the RC Book and the same is not changed and NOC is not yet given. Opposite party has not produced any evidence regarding the return of NOC and documents. We find it is a gross deficiency from the part of opposite parties to deny the loan after completing all formalities for the same. Loan sanction is the discretion of the Bank. But complainant has completed all formalities and if there was any difficulty in sanctioning the said loan, opposite party should have intimated the same to the complainant at the earliest. Complainant had suffered severe mental and financial hardships due to the denial of loan sanction and the same must be compensated.
Hence the petition partially allowed. Opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.5000/- as cost and compensation to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31st day of January, 2017
Sd/-
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT
Sd/-
SRI. BENNY. K., MEMBER
(cont......5)
- 5 -
APPENDIX
Depositions :
On the side of the Complainant :
PW1 - Ramesh.
On the side of the Opposite Party :
DW1 - Gijo Joseph.
Exhibits :
On the side of the Complainant :
Ext.P1 - Debi Clearing receipt.
Ext.P2 - Copy of RC Book.
Ext.P3 - Copy of policy schedule cum certificate.
On the side of the Opposite Party :
Ext.R1 - System print out of master entry.
Ext.D1 - copy of online transfer of the amount.
