Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/144/2018

M.T.Chandrashekar S/o M.S.Thippeswamy - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sri A.M.Rudramuni

31 Jan 2019

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:28.07.2018

DISPOSED  ON:31.01.2019

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO:144/2018

 

DATED:  31^st JANUARY 2019

PRESENT :-     SRI.T.N.SREENIVASAIAH :    PRESIDENT                            B.A., LL.B.,

                        SMT. JYOTHI RADHESH JEMBAGI:

BSc.,MBA., DHA.,                LADY MEMBER

 

 

……COMPLAINANT	Sri. M.T.Chandrashekar, S/o M.S. Thippeswamy, Aged about 53 years, Merchant, R/o KSRTC Depot Road, Church Extension, Chitradurga.   (Rep by Sri.A.M. Rudramuni,Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTY	The Manager, Punjab National Bank, No.32,VP Extension, Main road, Chitradurga-577501.   (Rep by Sri.C.J. Lakshminarasimha, Advocate)

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH:   PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OP to pay Rs.3,000/- towards legal scrutiny report, Rs.3,500/- towards valuer report, Rs.5,000/- towards collecting of documents, in all a sum of Rs.11,500/-, Rs.10,000/- towards mental shock and Rs.10,000/- towards costs with interest @ 12% p.a and to grant such other reliefs.

2.     The brief facts of the case of the above complainant is that, he approached OP for financial assistance for a loan of Rs.20,00,000/- for his business purpose and as per the instructions of OP Bank, the complainant and his son M.C. Sachin filed a loan application for finance by mortgaging immovable property and submitted all the title deeds and khata extract, 15 years EC, tax paid receipt and other relating municipal documents of site No.2 Municipal Khata/Asst.No.6295/5633/2640/2871/2872 and E Khata/E property No.21-1-42-23A totally measuring E-W: 48 + 51/2 feet, N-S: 23 feet RCC commercial building situated at 4^th Block, near Sandi Maidan road, Santepet, Chitradurga for scrutiny.  Thereafter, the Bank has sent all the documents for legal scrutiny to OP Bank Advocate, Sri. C.J. Lakshminarasimha, who after verifying all the documents issued special report and title on 24.03.2018 to the OP Bank, for that, the complainant has paid Rs.3,000/- through his SB A/c on 28.03.2018.  Thereafter, the OP Bank has sent the property documents to valuer Sri. B.R. Chandraiah at Davanagere and he visited the spot and took photos of the building and issued report of valuation of immoveable property to OP Bank on 28.03.2018.  For that, the OP Bank has paid valuer charges of Rs.3,500/- + NEFT charges of Rs.2-96 through SB A/c of complainant on 19.05.2018.  It is further submitted that, the complainant has fulfilled all the terms and conditions of OP Bank and thereafter the OP Bank has issued EMI calculation of repayment of the loan to complainant and later the OP Bank has issued letter on 19.05.2018 to the complainant stating that, the loan cannot be sanctioned under ODIP scheme.  It is further submitted that, the complainant has spent Rs.5,000/- towards collecting EC, Municipal Tax and other records and Rs.3,000/- for legal scrutiny report and Rs.3,500/- towards valuer charges, in all a sum of Rs.11,500/-.  The complainant has written a letter to the OP Bank on 21.05.2018 claiming refund of the above amount which was spent by him.  OP Bank has sent a letter to the complainant with covering letter to Circle Head, Circle Office, Karnataka on 21.05.2018.  Thereafter, the complainant has approached OP Bank, the OP Bank has issued letter on 04.06.2018 to the complainant stating that, they have forwarded the letter to CO, Bangalore, but they have not received any reply and will submit our reply on hearing from the Circle Office.  But, the OP has not refunded the amount to the complainant and not replied feor the same, which is a deficiency of service on the part of OP.  The cause of action for this complaint arose on 24.03.2018 when the Advocate has issued special report and the valuer report on 28.03.2018 and letter issued by the OP Bank on 04.06.2018, which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum and hence, prayed for allow the complaint.

3.     On service of notice to the OP, Sri. C.J. Lakshminarasimha, Advocate appeared on behalf of OP and filed version denying all the allegations made in the complaint.  The allegations made in para 3 of the complaint are true subject to the terms and conditions of the Bank Rules and Regulations.  The allegations made in para 4 are the matter of record and proof and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same.  The allegations made in para 5 are denied as false.  It is submitted that, the OP has not considered the loan proposal of the complainant due to several technical aspects and also due to some reasons as stated in the rejection letter of proposal sent by the Head Office or Controlling office.  The allegations made in para 6 are denied as false and it is true that, the complainant has paid the professional fee of Advocate and approved panel Engineer for necessary purpose.  The allegations made in para 7 is a matter of record and proof and this OP is bound by the orders of the Head Office or Controlling Officer.  It is admitted by the OP that, there is no any such provision in any Banks for refund of professional fee paid and the expenses incurred by the intending borrower.  It is submitted that, the complainant has not produced the original registered will copy and other originals to the OP for inspection of the same soon after taking the legal opinion and valuation/estimation report.  The complainant has availed facility previously from the MSSBN, Chitradurga and taken originals of the same in the year 2014, but not given the same to the OP for inspection.  The complainant has not given reconveyance deed or mortgage cancellation deed for having closure of the loan with MSSBN, Chitradurga or for having discharge of the charge created by MSSBN, Chitradurga for the property offered for the loan proposal.  It is submitted that, as per the letter sent by PNB, Credit Department, Circle Office, Bangalore to the OP stating that they have perused the papers of the loan proposal and after observations made by them, the property offered is fully used for commercial purpose, 95% income of the borrower is from commercial activity and more than 50% of the monthly installment of the loan is to be repaid from the rental income of the house/flat/unit being financed, the same will be considered under CRE Activity, as per RA Cir.No.63/2017-18 dated 10.08.2017.  In addition to that, at the time of inspection by the OP, the property is not in accordance with the municipal permission given to the complainant and there are some deviations in respect of the commercial buildings when the same is compared with the documents given by the complainant.  In view of the above reasons and facts, the Credit Department of the Circle Office, PNB, Bangalore has sent a letter stating that, they have delisting the proposal of the complainant and informed the same to complainant immediately and therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.     Complainant himself has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-15 got marked.  OP has examined one Sri. Sibaram Behara, the Branch Manager of OP as DW-1 and relied on Ex.B-1 to B-3 documents and closed their side.

5.     Arguments heard.

6.     Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaint are that;

(1)  Whether the complainant proves that the OP has committed deficiency of service in sanctioning the loan and entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the above complaint?

              (2) What order?

        7.     Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

        Point No.1:- Partly in Affirmative.

        Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

8.     It is not in dispute between the parties that, the complainant is having SB A/c with the OP Bank and further the complainant has applied for loan facility of Rs.20,00,000/- on hypothecation of his building constructed in Sandemaidan, Santepete, Chitradurga.  After collecting all the documents by the OPs send the same to the Advocate for legal scrutiny.  One Sri. C.J. Lakshminarasimha has given his opinion stating that, the OP has collected all the original documents before disbursement of the loan.  Accordingly, he has given opinion to the OP.  After collecting the opinion from the Advocate, the OP has sent all the documents to Sri. B.R. Chandraiah, Davanagere for valuation of the above said building.  The valuer has valued the property of the complainant and submitted valuation report to the OP.  After collecting all the documents from the complainant, the Bank send the same to Head Office for approval of the loan.  In the meanwhile, the OP has issued notice to the complainant stating that, they are not ready to sanction loan to him, the main reason for rejection of loan is that, the previously the complainant has availed the loan facility from MSSBN, Chitradurga and the MSSBN has taken original documents in the year 2014, but not given the same to OP for inspection.  The complainant has not produced the reconveyance deed or mortgaged cancellation deed for having closure of the loan with MSSBN, Chitradurga or for discharge of the charge created by MSSBN, Chitradurga for the property offered for the loan proposer.  As per the letter sent by the PNB Credit Department, Circle Office, Bangalore to the OP, it is stated that, they have perused the papers of loan and after observation made by them, it is stated that, the property offer is fully used for commercial activity and more than 50% of the monthly installment of the loan is to be repaid from the rental income of the house/flat/unit being financed.  The OP has addressed arguments stating that, the property is not in accordance with the Municipal permission given to the complainant and there are some deviations in respect of commercial building when the same is compared with the documents given by the complainant.  In view of the above said reasons and facts, the Credit Department of Circle Office, PNB, Bangalore has sent letter stating that, they have delisted the proposal of the complainant and the same is informed to the complainant immediately, the sanction of loan is discretionary power left to the Bank and therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP.

9.     We have gone through the entire documents filed by both the parties.  The document produced by the complainant clearly shows that, the complainant has applied for loan from the OP.  The OP has taken a main contention and given explanation as to why the loan was not sanctioned to the complainant.  The complainant has obtained loan previously from the MSSBN, Chitradurga and the same is cleared in the year 2014 itself.  But at the time of producing the documents, the complainant intentionally avoided to produce the original conveyance deed before the OP and moreover, the complainant has not constructed the building as per the plan approved by the concerned authority i.e., also the main reason for non-sanctioning of the loan to the complainant.  Hence, the OPs have not committed any deficiency of service towards the complainant.     Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as negative to the complainant.

          10.     Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is hereby dismissed.  No order as to costs. 

            (This order is made with the consent of Lady Member after the correction of the draft on 31/01/2019 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)     

 

                                     

MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

DW-1:  Sri. Sibaram Behera, the Branch Manager by way of affidavit evidence.

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Loan application dated 09.03.2018
02	Ex-A-2:-	Assets and liabilities of guarantor dated 09.03.2018
03	Ex-A-3:-	Income tax return verification For(2) of Suchith M.C
04	Ex-A-4:-	Udhyog Adar of Suchith M.C
05	Ex-A-5:-	SB A/c Passbook
06	Ex-A-6:-	OD IP of Rs.20,00,000/- favouring complainant
07	Ex-A-7:-	Explanation of reduction in rental income dated 03.05.2018
08	Ex-A-8:-	Letter dated 19.05.2018 by Circle Office, B’lore
09	Ex-A-9:-	Letter dated 21.05.2018 by complainant
10	Ex-A-10:-	Letter dated 21.05.2018 by OP
11	Ex.A-11:-	Complaint by complainant dated 04.06.2018
12	Ex.A-12:-	Report of valuation dated 28.03.2018
13	Ex.A-13:-	EMI calculation by OP
14	Ex.A-14:-	Letter dated 03.04.2018 addressed to Merchant Bank, Chitradurga
15	Ex.A-15:-	Letter dated 31.03.2018 by OP Bank

 

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

01	Ex-B-1:-	Letter dated 19.05.2018
02	Ex-B-2:-	On-line letter of Head Office
03	Ex-B-3:-	Letter dated 03.04.2018

 

 

MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

Rhr**