Date of filing : 17-04-2013
Date of order : 26-06-2014
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.109/2012
Dated this, the 26th day of June 2014
PRESENT:
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : PRESIDENT
SMT.K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL : MEMBER
Jins Paul, S/o.P.V.Paul, : Complainant
Puthethuparambil, Manvettam,
Memury.Po. Kottayam, 686 617
(In Person)
1 The Manager, State Bank of Travancore, : Opposite parties
Manjeswaram Branch,
Hosangady, Kasaragod. 671323
2 Advance Manager/Field Officer, State Bank of Travancore,
Manjeswaram Branch,
Hosangady, Kasaragod. 671323
3 The Chief Manager, Agri Business Department,
State Bank of Travancore, Head office,
Poojappura, Trivandrum. 695012
4 The Managing Director, State Bank of Travancore,
Head Office, Poojappura, Trivandrum.695012
(Ops 1 to 4 Adv.I.V.Bhat & Adv.S.Mahalinga, Kasaragod)
O R D E R
SMT.P.RAMADEVI, PRESIDENT
Brief facts of the case are:
Mr. Jins paul is an agriculturist. In order to improve his agricultural operations, for fencing and irrigation facilities he had submitted an application for agricultural term loan of Rs.8 lakhs to the opposite parties bank on 18-07-2011. He selected SBT because he is the account holder of SBT Kuruppanthara branch and he is a regular customer of SBT for many years. The project report along with all the other documents required by the bank were handed over to the bank and the complainant was awaiting reply from the Bank for approval of his loan. To know the approval of his loan he had sent many E-mails. From the website of SBT the complainant came to know that his application is approved by the Bank. Thereafter the complainant obtained legal opinion and valuation statements and those documents were submitted before the bank and the opposite party assured the complainant to give the loan. But he has no information from the bank irrespective of various queries of correspondence made by him. In anticipation of sanction from the bank the complainant had availed loan from other private financial institutions for higher rate of interest for fencing and other agricultural purposes. The bank informed the complainant that for sanctioning of loan to the tune of more than 3 lakhs the permission of the head office is required and it will take time and advised him to apply for Kissan Credit Card Loan. Then the complainant again submitted application for Kissan Credit Card Loan for a tune of Rs.3 Lakhs on 8th December, 2011 and he also submitted the legal report. The bank assured the complainant that the loan will be sanctioned within 3 days. Thereafter no information from the bank. Hence the complainant sent E-mails to the bank and also to the head office. Then the bank after a lapse of 6 months informed the complainant that the bank is not ready to give the loan since the complainant complained before the head office and asked him to take back the documents. The complainant had taken back the documents and filed this complaint against opposite parties alleging deficiency in service.
2. Opposite parties filed version denying all the allegations made against them by the complainant in the complaint. Opposite parties submitted that complainant is not a consumer and the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum since the complainant is not a customer. It is submitted that the complainant had made request for loan and the opposite parties have not accepted the proposal. Opposite parties further submitted that there was no promise or assurance given to the complainant while accepting an application for loan. Obtaining of project report or legal scrutiny report of the title for the property to be mortgaged are the basic requirements in processing the application for granting loan and after completion of these formalities, the viability of the project and repayment ability of the borrower to be considered after convincing from the datas available in each case and the property offered for mortgage by the complainant was barren land without income and while processing the loan application for sanction of agricultural term loan for Rs. 8 lakhs for fencing, irrigation and other agricultural operations, the complainant was convinced that the long term loan was not feasible to him and he wanted short term loan under Kissan Credit and interest @ 7% per annum for Rs.3,00,000/- that the complainant was informed that opposite parties cannot sanction Rs.3,00,000/- under that category. But the complainant insisted the loan at the rate of 7% interest per annum under Kissan gold Card scheme itself. But the rate of interest is higher than that of the Kissan Credit Card scheme which he does not want to avail and ultimately he wanted to withdraw his request for loan and documents from bank at his own will and the documents were returned to complainant at his request after executing the acknowledgement. The delay if any is only because of no proper communication as the complainant is residing outside the jurisdiction of the bank. Opposite parties further submitted that opposite parties are still ready to sanction the loan under Kissan Credit Card within eligible limit inaccordance with the conditions applicable to the scheme. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3. After considering the facts of the case the following issues raised for consideration:
1 Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of opposite parties or not?
2 If so what is the relief?
4. In this case the complainant filed proof affidavit and Exts A1 to A36 were marked. Complainant was cross-examined by counsel for opposite parties. No oral evidence is adduced by opposite parties and Ext.B1.document marked on their side. Heard both sides and documents perused. Opposite parties counsel filed argument notes also.
5. The specific case of the complainant is that there is inordinate delay in processing the loan application of the complainant and at last the opposite parties denied the loan without any valid reasons. According to the complainant various queries of correspondence had been made to the bank to know the position of his loan application, the bank was not ready to respond it properly in time. But the complainant came to know from the website of the bank that his loan application was approved by the bank. Evenafter the approval of his loan application on completing all the legal formalities the bank had denied loan only because the complainant made complaint against the bank to their higher authorities. On the contrary according to opposite parties the delay is caused only because of no proper communication as the complainant is residing outside the jurisdiction of the bank. The short question is whose version is to be believed. On going through the documents filed by the complainant he had made attempts to communicate his queries to the bank through Mail. But there is no documentary evidence on the side of bank that the bank had properly answered all those quaries. There is no circumstances to disbelieve the complainant. The bank has no case that there is any latches on the part of complainant on submitting the documents required by the bank. At present also the bank is ready and willing to give Kisan Credit Card Loans to the complainant. Here the version of the bank that the complainant withdrawn his request of loan is not believable because the complainant had taken much effort to submit the relevant documents for sanctioning the loan twice. If a person is not interested why should he taken such an effort. Moreover, the complainant stated that in anticipation of the loan he had availed financial assistance from the private institution for a higher interest and he could not complete the fencing and other agricultural works due to the shortage of money. That means he was in need of money and in such a circumstances the version of the bank that he withdrawn the loan application is not believable. The delay is admitted by the bank. It is not proper on the side of bank that after obtaining all the necessary documents required by the bank for sanctioning the loan and at last denying the loan. If the bank is not ready to give the loan it could have been intimated to the complainant at the initial stage. Therefore considering all the facts and circumstances of the case we find that there is negligence on the part of opposite parties in processing and sanctioning of the loan and it amounts to deficiency in service.
Therefore the complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- and cost of Rs.2000/- to the complainant. Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1.to A8 Copy of Mails.
A9. Copy of Valuation Report (Land & Building)
A10 & A11 Copy of Mails
A12. 29-10-2011 Copy of Legal Opinion-Sri.Jins Paul
A13. Copy of Mail
A14. 21-11-2011 Copy of Title Investigation Report.
A15. Copy of Valuation Report(Land & Building)
A16. Copy of Complainant’s Application Form for agricultural loan
A17.Copy of courier receipt
A18. Copy of Mail
A19. 3-12-2011 Copy of Title Investigation Report
A20. Copy of details of documents submitted to the SBT Manjeshwar Branch
A21 to 26 Copy of Mails.
A27. Copy of State Bank of Travancore Annual Report 2010-2011 pages 12 & 13
A28. Photocopy of advertisement
A29.Copy of State Bank of Travancore Annual Report 2011-2012 Page No.8
A30. Copy of title deed deposited-Equitable Mortgage Created
A31.State Bank of Travancore Fair Lending Practices code 9(SBTFLPC)
A32. 15-11-2011 Copy of receipt issued by Sunny Thomas to Jinus Paul
A33. 16-8-2011 Copy of bill issued by Febin Lee & Co. Thodupuzha to Jins Paul
A34 3-12-2011 Receipt issued by Adv.IV.Bhat to Jins Paul fee for legal opinion
A35. 29-11-2011 Copy of receipt issued by Gayathri Bhat Consulting Engineer, Kumbla to complainant
A36 .17-04-12 letter submitted by the complainant to Hon’ble President & Members CDRF,Kasaragod
B1. Copy of acknowledgment Account No-Jins Paul
PW1. Jins Paul
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/ Forwarded by Order
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
