CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
PALAKKAD, KERALA
Dated this the 29th day of November, 2012.
Present: Smt. Seena. H, President
: Smt. Preetha. G. Nair, Member
: Smt. Bhanumathi. A.K, Member Date of filing: 20/06/2012
CC .No/106/2012
Manikandan,
S/o. Sankaran Moothan, Puthan veedu,
Peringodamsam Desom, Kongad, - Complainant
Palakkad.
(By Adv. M. P. Ravi)
Vs
The Manager,
Canara Bank, Kongad Branch,
Kongad P.O,
Palakkad.
( By Adv. K. Jayaprakash & Dhananjayan) -Opposite party
O R D E R
BY SMT. BHANUMATHI. A.K, MEMBER
Case of the complaint in brief :-
The complainant has taken an agricultural loan from the opposite party. In January 2011 the complainant wanted one more loan for an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs . The assurance of sanctioning of loan was given by the opposite party if there is sufficeint immovable property to pledge. Accordingly the complainant has submitted the title deed of the property document No. 2147/1992 and other documents to Adv. Jayaprakash who is the panel advocate of the opposite party bank paying Rs. 1500/-. Eventhough the complainant has submitted the legal opinion and other original documents, the opposite party has not sanctioned the loan till this date. The complainant was in the impression that he will get the laon amount and has done some financial arrangements. So the complainant lost an amount of Rs. 50,000/- . On 5/03/12 the complainant sent a notice to opposite party demanding to return the original documents and getting compensation. But the opposite party sent reply notice stating false statements. The act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service on their part.
So the complainant seeking an order directing the opposite party to return the original title deed of 2147/1992 in the name of complainant and an amount of Rs. 70,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of the proceedings.
Opposite party entered appearance and filed version denying the avernments put forward by the complainant.
It is admitted by the opposite party is that the complainant was having a loan account in the opposite party bank. The complainant had applied for the loan in this bank, but the opposite party never had given any promise that they will give the loan to the complainant within one month. When the complainant has applied for the loan naturally as a usual procedure it was referred for legal scrutiny of the documents. If the legal opinion is given by the concerned legal adviser of the bank, after paying the fee , it does not mean that every applicant will get the loan amount from the bank. The sanctioning of the loan to a particular person is a discretion of the bank. There is no loss occurred to the complainant by any of the acts of the opposite party. When the complainant's counsel has sent the lawyer notice to the opposite party they have given a clear clarification through the reply notice. The complainant had already availed two loans from the opposite party, which were irregular and his account become a non operating account . The opposite party can give loan only after clearing the past dues and also considering his contacts in the transaction of the loan accounts.
Opposite party is willing to grant loan to the complainant in accordance with the terms and conditions of the bank. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and prays for the dismissal of the complaint with cost.
Both parties filed their respective affidavits and Ext. A1 and A2 and B1 to B4 marked.
Heard both parties.
Issues to be considered are
Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party ?
If so what is the relief and cost?
Issues 1 & II
Complaint is regarding deficiency of service on the part of opposite party in not sactioning the loan amount even after submitting all the documents directed by the opposite party. Complainant also alleges that the opposite party has not returned the original title deed of the property (document No. 2147/1992) to the compalinant.
Oppsite party admits that the complainant was having two loan accounts with opposite party. In January 2011 the complainant applied loan for an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- and submitted original title deed of immovable property and other documents to the opposite party. Complainant alleges that he has approached the opposite party several times and enquired about the sanctioning of loan. Complainant also requested several times to get back the original title deed and other documents. On 5/03/12 the complainant sent a lawyer notice to opposite party (Ext. A1) demanding the original documents for which the opposite party has sent reply on 30/05/12 (Ext. A2). In the lawyer notice the opposite party informed the complainant that the opposite party is ready to return the doucuments if the complainant approach them.
The main allegation of the complainant is that even after submitting entire documents the opposite party has not sactioned the loan amount . The complainant made many financial arrangements in the belief of getting the loan amount. So the complainant lost Rs. 50,000/-. But no evidence is produced to that aspect.
Opposite party produced Ext. B1 and B2 statement of account to show that the compalinant is irregular in payment. It is the usual procedure of the bank to refer the doucuments for legal scrutiny. Sanctioning of loan to a particular person is the discretionery decision of the opposite party considering the contact in the transaction of the loan accounts. If it is so the opposite party could have inform the complainant that he is not eligible for getting the loan amount. In Ext.A2 it is stated that the opposite party is ready to sanction the loan to the complainant as per norms. And ready to return the original documents. It is only after receiving the lawyer notice from the complainant. Opposite party admits that the complainant applied for the loan amount in January 2011. Ext. A2 is issued on 30/03/2012. More than one year the original documents are in the custody of opposite party.
In the result complaint partly allowed. Opposite party is directed to return the original title deed of the property (document No. 2147/1992) and other doucuments to the complainant.
Opposite party is also directed to pay a nominal amount of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as compensation and Rs. 1000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 29th day of November, 2012
Sd/-
Smt. Seena. H
President
Sd/-
Smt. Preetha.G.Nair
Member
Sd/-
Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K
Member
A P P E N D I X
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext. A1– Copy of the lawyer notice to the opposite party with acknowledgement card and postal receipt .
Ext.A2 – Reply notice sent by opposite party to the complainant's advocate.
Exhibitsmarked on the side of opposite party
Ext.B1- Computerised statements of accounts pertaining the loan transaction of the complainat bearing Loan account No. 603 can mobile for the period of 10/03/10 to 11/10/12.
Ext.B2- Computerised statement of accounts for the loan transaction No. 0831840014131840 Kissan credit scheme short duration perod 7/02/08 to 11/10/12.
Ext. B3 - Copy of the reply notice sent by opposite party's advocate to the complainant's advovate with acknowledgement card .
Ext. B4 – copy of the circular issued from the Canara Bank, Head office, Banglore. Circular No. 132/2012 dated 30.04.2012.
Witness examined on the side of complainant
Nil
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
Nil
Cost allowed
Rs. 1000/- (One Thousand only )allowed as cost of the proceedings.
