Karnataka

Kolar

CC/132/2023

Suraj - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, SBI - Opp.Party(s)

12 Mar 2024

ORDER

Date of Filing: 13/10/2023

Date of Order: 12/03/2024

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, OLD D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR – 563 101.

Dated:12^th DAY OF MARCH 2024

SRI. SYED ANSER KALEEM, B.Sc., B.Ed., LL.B., …… PRESIDENT

SMT. SAVITHA AIRANI, B.A.L., LL.M., …..LADY MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO:132/2023

Suraj. J

S/o. S. Jagadeeshwaran,

Aged about 51 years,

R/at: A203, 4^th Cross,

White Garden,

Araleri Road,

Malur-563130.

Kolar.

(Rep. by In-Person)                                        ….  Complainant.

 

                                                                                                                - V/s –

The Manager,

The State Bank of India,

Jadigenahalli Branch Code-40193,

Jadigenahalli-562114.

(Rep. by Sri. V. Sreedhara Murthy, Advocate)   ……Opposite Party.                                                                   

 

-: ORDER:-

BY SRI. SYED ANSER KALEEM, PRESIDENT

1. That the complainant in person filed this Complaint U/s 35 of the C.P. Act against the OP for claiming the refund of all the difference of compounded interest from 25/02/2022 and to regularized the loan by treating the loan as TOP UP HOUSING LOAN and to tender return apology for dereliction of services.

 

2. The brief fact of the complaint is that, the complainant and his wife jointly own the site property measuring 40x60 at Malur.  Further stated that, the complainant and his wife were obtained the Housing Loan during the year 2013 and constructed the ground floor.  Further stated that, complainant approached the OP Bank with an intention to construct first floor and thereby got obtained the JOINT TOP UP HOUSING BANK LOAN to an extent of Rs.10,00,000/- and the said loan was sanctioned on 25/02/2022.  That the complainant is paid regular EMIs towards his loan accounts.  It is the grievance of the complainant is that, on 13/10/2022 he had received a phone call from OP Bank internal auditor asking him to visit the Bank to discuss for an enquiry regarding arrears of loan account.  Further complainant states that, after visiting the Bank on 13/10/2022 he came to know that, his joint top up housing loan was irregularly and deceitfully proceeded as personal loan Xpress Credit to his individual name instead of joint name with a higher rate of interest and higher EMI. 

 

3. It is stated that, the complainant has given the written letter on 13/10/2022 to the SBI Auditor informing that, he had applied for JOINT TOP UP HOUSING BANK LOAN and not Xpress Credit Personal Loan.  It is alleged that, the SBI Manager pointing out that, due diligence was not done no solution was provided for the issue.  It is also stated that, complainant had sent several e-mails to the SBI customer care center, accordingly the direct to meet the SBI branch manager.  Further the branch manager informed that, and suggested that, complainant wife should apply for a fresh TOP UP HOUSING LOAN and funds get sanctioned and they will take new loan amount to close the incorrect personal loan to his name to rectify their mistake.  The complainant states that, his wife is agreed to apply in her name for a new TOP UP HOUSING LOAN and followed all over again the complete procedure of getting and submitting the require documents, it is stated that, the new application filed by the complainant wife for new TOP UP HOUSING LOAN was declined due to Non-Performing Asset status and he should regularized the earlier housing loan in order to process the sanctioning of new TOP UP LOAN to close the Xpress Personal Loan.  It is also alleged that, despite request OP Bank branch manager failed to provide copy of loan application form with respect to Xpress Credit Personal Loan and ultimately informed that, his loan application form was missing.  Hence this complaint.

 

4. Upon admission of the complaint and on issuance of notice, that the OP appeared through his counsel and filed its version.

 

5. In the version it is contended that, complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  It is contended that, the complaint is filed with malafide intention to enrich unlawfully.  It is stated that, complainant wife by name Mrs. A.M Leelavathi who is working as Post Master at Malur, the housing loan in the year 2013 in the State Bank of Mysore before merging with the OP Bank.  Further the OP Bank totally denied all the allegations made in the complaint.  It is contended that, by looking into the nature of employment and income of the wife of the complainant housing loan was sanctioned.  However it is contended that, complainant and his wife not approached to the OP Bank for Joint Top Up Housing Loan and not submitted any application or documents for considering their Top Up Loan and hence contended that, question of sanctioning the said loan does not arise at all.   It is contended that, whenever customers availed loan from the Bank the updates will be informed to the customers either through massages or through phone calls for remind us.  Further contended that, whenever customers sought for clarification OP Bank being public institution will respond to resolve issues, but in the present case there was irregularity of loan installments automated messages will be sent to borrowers to repay arrears or regularize their loan.  It is true that, complainant was called by the internal auditor of the Bank but the complainant or his wife not at all submitted any top up loan application and without any applications loans cannot be considered by the bank.  It is contended that, the then Manager  Mr. Ankit Kumar with each other complainant availed Xpress Credit Loan facility from the Bank.  Further contended that, by observing all the irregularities committed by the said the then Manager and the higher authorities suspended the Manager and the complaint registered against him.  It is stated that, the account of the complainant is one among the accounts were fraud has been detected on Banks investigations.  It is stated that, when one loan is irregular another loan will not be considered and here in this case the complainant will not given any application for Top Up Loan and hence contended that, question of sanctioning the Housing Top Up Loan does not arise.  Further it is contended that, the then Manager presently under suspension the question of conversation between suspended Manager it clearly reveals that, complainant and suspended Manager were colluded with each other and complainant has availed Xpress Credit Facility from the Bank.  It is denied as false and incorrect that, the Chief Manager of the Bank or the Assistant General Manager never suggested the wife of the complainant should apply for first Top Up Housing Loan.  It is contended that, complainant availed the Xpress Credit Facility from the Bank and he has withdrawn the said amount from the Bank which clearly shows that, after availing Xpress Credit Facility by the complainant and after utilizing the funds and after lapse of more than one year from the date of disbursement of the that too when the complainant defaulted in re-paying his loan installments loan has become irregular.  Hence contended that, complainant to safeguard himself throwing entire burden on the Bank making false allegation.  It is contended that, complainant managed in getting Xpress Credit Facility on 25/02/2022 with the collusion of the, the then Manager through system generated transaction and form supporting the said fact the complainant not at all submitted any application for Xpress Credit though complainant availed Xpress Credit Facility and keeping quiet for all these days and after lapse of one & half year complainant filed the present complaint with malafide intention.

 

6. It is contended that, OP Bank is the public institution and the amount claimed by the complainant is public money, the act of complainant against the Bank is causing hardship and inconvenience to the OP Bank.  On the above said grounds OP Bank prays to dismiss the complaint with exemplary cost.

 

7. In order to prove the case of the complainant and the OP both the parties filed their affidavit evidence.

 

8. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following points will do arise for our consideration.

 

1. Whether the complainant proves that the OP Bank committed deficiency in service by sanctioning the Xpress Credit Loan instead of Top Up Housing Loan?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as sought in the complaint?
3. What order?

We have heard the arguments of the parties.  Perused the evidence placed on record.  Our answers to the above points are as follows:

Point No. (1) & (2):- Are in the Negative.

Point No. (3):-          As per the order for the following.

 

REASONS

9. Point No.(1) & (2):-  On perusal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence placed on record and we are of the opinion that, these two points are interlinked to each other and in order to avoid repetition of discussion of facts and for the sake of brevity, these points will taken up together for common discussion.

 

10. On perusing the pleadings of the parties it is not in dispute that the complainant and his wife were jointly obtained the Housing Loan during the year 2013.  It is also not in dispute on 25/02/2022 that the complainant also obtained the Xpress Credit Loan from the OP Bank but the complainant contention is that, he has obtained the Top Up Housing Loan to an extent of Rs.10,00,000/- not the Xpress Credit Loan. 

 

11. It is the grievance of the complainant is that, he approached the Bank for Housing Top Up Loan but the Bank to gain more interest sanctioned the Xpress Credit Loan and hence alleged that despite his request they have not converted the Xpress Credit Loan into the Top Up Housing Loan which leads to filing of the present complaint. 

 

Per contra, OP Bank contended that, the wife of the complainant is working in the Postal Department and the complainant and his wife were jointly obtained the Housing Loan during the year 2013 by executing the necessary Housing Loan documents and mortgaged  the Housing property in favour of the Bank which is not in dispute.  The OP Bank contended that, Xpress Credit Loan applied through On-line by the complainant and its terms and conditions sent to his mail after his consents they sanctioned the Xpress Credit Loan only to the complainant and the complainant withdrawing the said Xpress Credit Loan amount and utilized the same.  Further contended that, the complainant after availing the Xpress Credit Loan amount keeping quiet for a long time to an extent of one and half year and filed the present complaint in order to gain wrongfully. 

 

12. It is noteworthy to mention that, as per the saying of the complainant the loan in question sanctioned in favour of the complainant on 25/02/2022 when the complainant came to know about the status of the loan that is “Xpress Credit Loan”, he would have ought to have foreclose the loan amount if it is not housing Top Up Loan amount but it is not done by him but he has filed the complaint after one and half year.  Hence the OP Bank rightly contended that, complainant keeping quiet and mum for one and half year brought this complaint before this Commission.

 

13.  Furthermore, as an admitted fact when the housing loan was obtained by the complainant and his wife jointly and both jointly executed the loan papers and mortgage the house property to the value fixed by the Bank in favour of the Bank with respect to their housing loan account.  If the complainant obtained the housing Top Up Loan amount, no loan papers are executed by the wife of the complainant in favour of the Bank and fresh mortgage papers were also not executed for higher value in favour of the Bank.  In absence of joint execution of the loan papers by the complainant and his wife in favour of the Bank, it clearly demonstrates that, the loan sanctioned in question is not the Housing Loan but it is Xpress Credit Loan only.

 

14. It is worth to note that, Bank being the public Institution empowers to receive deposits from the general public and advance loan to the general public by taking security.  The advancing the loan by the Bank it is advantage to the Bank which earns interest on the advancement, whereas deposits is the liability to the Bank.  On perusal of the email correspondence he has correspondent with the Manager Mr. Ankit Kumar who is under suspension and hence his correspondence will not throw much light on the issues involved in the case, but it made us to draw inference about the credibility of the said Manager who is under suspension.

 

15.   On foregoing reasons viewing from any angle complainant failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the OP Bank and hence complainant is not entitled for the any relief as sought in the complaint.  Accordingly we answered the Point No. (1) & (2) are in the negative.

 

16. Point No. (3):- On the basis of discussion and reasons assigned while answering Point No. (1) & (2) and thereon we proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.  No order as to cost.
2. Send a copy of this order to all the parties to the proceedings at free of cost.

 

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and   then pronounced by us on this 12^th DAY OF MARCH 2024)

 

 

          MEMBER                                     PRESIDENT