Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/88/2016

Mohamad R Mustafa. The Proprietor Super India Macche - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

M V Patil

22 Apr 2016

ORDER

: ORDER :

The complainant has filed the complaint u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act against the O.P. alleging deficiency in service for non sanctioning of loan praying for compensation.

The point for consideration is that, whether the complaint is maintainable before this forum?

The complaint before the forum is for hearing on admission and we have heard the complainant on maintainability and looking to the allegations made in the complaint, first of all we have to consider whether the complainant is consumer and complaint is maintainable before the forum.

The allegations of the complainant against the O.Ps. that the complainant is a businessmen and customer of O.P.No.1 bank for many years and having account and for purpose of the business he applied for loan in the opponents bank and the complainant further alleges that he is in the need of money for investing in the business and intend to avail the loan from opponent No.1 bank by mortgaging the landed property situated at Jamui Garhi, PS Khaira, Jamui District State Bihar and the fact that land is in Bihar state known to the Bank and opponent No.1 assured to grant a loan facility to the complainant. The complainant further alleges that he had spent Rs.20,000/- for collecting documents and the set of 1 to 248 pages in all documents were submitted to the bank officials and spent Rs.10,000/- towards travelling to Bihar. The complainant further alleges that he was having his account earlier in opponent No.2’s bank and according to the say of the opponent No.1, the complainant transfer the account on 4/8/2014 to opponent No.2’s bank and after transfer opponent No.1 to assured to grant loan. On 12/8/2014 the opponent No.1 branch issued a letter to Senior Manager of Punjab National Bank Jamui asking them to mortgage the property and grant the loan. The complainant spent Rs.10,000/- and went to Jamui. approached the Punjab National Bank Jamui to grant the loan and in turn the Punjab National Bank Jamui requested to approach circle office of Bihar sarif  and in turn again they directed to approach opponent No.2. The complainant alleges that due to the act of the opponents he has suffered heavy expenditure and loss and upon that there was legal opinion given by the advocate who was on the penal of opponent bank and the valuation report of the property is mentioned as Rs.94,90,250/-, and the counsel in the opinion said that the property is clear and having marketable title. The complainant further alleges that on 24/6/2015 the opponent bank intimated the complainant through letter that the loan cannot be sanctioned and the complainant submits that he has suffered a loss of Rs.22 lakhs as he could not complete order placed to him by the parties. The complainant alleges that due to non sanctioning the loan and after heavy expenses incurred by the complainant for travelling on 3/7/2015 issued legal notice to opponent No.1 and 2 to grant loan or to pay the compensation and on 10/7/2015 the opponents replied to the legal notice issued by the complainant instead of complying to the notice. The complainant prays before this forum to grant compensation of Rs.15 lakhs with interest at the rate of 15%.

We have heard the complainant and also document produced by him in support his allegations. By the allegations and documents we can make out that he has applied for the loan and also there was a legal opinion given by the counsel for O.Ps. showing clear marketable title of the property which is situated in Jamui, Bihar State. We have also perused the documents which is reply given by the opponent No.1 on 24/6/2015 to the complainant. Wherein we can read as ;

“With reference to your loan proposal, on referring to the SSI officer for Techno Economic Viability, the Officer has vide his report stated that the project is not found Technically Feasible and Economically Viable, hence the said proposal cannot be considered favourably.

     All the connected Documents and papers from pages 1 to 248 are returned herewith, kindly acknowledge.”

By reading on the above sentence, the opponent No.1 has reason that the project is not found technically feasible and economically valuable hence the proposal cannot be considered favourable. Generally it is the Bank who will ultimately take a decision in regards whether to sanction to a loan or not after satisfying itself looking to the paying capacity and the way customer produced the documents to the satisfaction of bank. No doubt in the present case the legal opinion given by the counsel for the O.P. bank shows the marketable title of the property given by the present complainant to the opponents, and the other required documents. But it is the ultimate decision of the bank to take a decision whether to sanction a loan or not. One cannot compelle the bank or issue any direction either by the court or by any authority making it mandatory to sanction the loan.

In number of decisions of Hon’ble National Commission, have held that if the loan is already sanctioned by the Bank but the bank fail to disperse the same to the barrowers, then the bank is at deficiency in service for non releasing of loan sanctioned. But the case on hand wherein the documents so produced before the opponents bank where under process and after considering the document of the complainant, the opponents bank as mentioned supra the letter dated 24/6/2015 came to conclusion that the complainant’s project report is not feasiable and economically valuable.

The complainant relied on the documents dated 12/8/2014 written by opponent No.1 bank to Senior branch Manager, Punjab National Bank Jamui stating that mortgage the property of the complainant and sanction the loan. We can also read that the letter addressed to the Bank also states that the amount shall be credited to the account shown in the letter after sanctioning of loan. But the loan was not sanctioned as per the allegations of the complainant. Herein we can notice that no doubt the letter speaks to sanctioned the loan after mortgaging property of the complainant, but it is the ultimate decision of opponent No.1 and 2 to take decision whether to sanction the loan or not.

After perusing the documents and allegations made in the complaint we are of the view that, we cannot direct the bank to sanction the loan to the complainant as the opponents have already found the property as not feasiable economically. The another point here is to be noted that the complainant is seeking loan to the tune of Rs.56 lakhs for investing in business. On this count as per the provisions of C.P.Act the loan is for commercial purpose. Therefore according to the act the complainant could not maintain the complaint before the forum. Hence the complaint filed by the complaint seeking compensation against the opponents as prayed in the complaint for non sanction of the loan by the opponents is not maintainable before the forum. Hence the following order;

 

ORDER

The complaint is dismissed as not maintainable.

Member               Member                         President