JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY

SMT.C.H.SAMIUNNISA ABRAR, PRESIDENT:

The complainant has filed this Complaint against the Opposite Party (herein after referred in short as OP) u/s 12 (2) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against OPs.

2.    The brief fact of the case is that the Complainant is permanent resident of Hubli. The complainant had borrowed a housing loan from SBI on 17.05.2013 Ref No. HTL/33000862797 Rs.10,45,000/- the said bank insured the home by collecting Rs.31,000/- for that the complainant mortgaged his two sites to the SBI, further SBI had levied a condition that a site purchaser should built a house on the sites within two stipulated years.

3.      Further complainant submits that as per the condition of SBI he started the construction of a house in 2014 by taking financial assistance from different mode after this complainant submits that he approached OP No.1 for housing loan and received a bank check list for housing loan to collect the documents of his property as per the check list, he has spent Rs.5,00,000/- and OP No.1 had sanctioned Rs.16,45,000/-. On 02.04.2016 the sanctioned letter has been forwarded to OP No.2 and the said papers belongs to the complainant also forwarded with the above said letter to OP No.2 and said that above sanctioned amount has to be re-paid within a period of 240 months as per the desire of OP No.1 to 3.

4.      The complainant further submits that to get their permission from HDMC complainant had paid  Rs.1,61,315/- and complainant paid advocate fee for legal opinion and other charges and so on. Further complainant informed the Ops regarding a process in construction and photos of the construction of the building shown to Ops as a token of a evidence and it is submitted that bank has not paid the sanctioned amount to the complainant so that he had  issued a legal notice to the Ops but Ops have not replied to the same and prayed that Ops are harassing him without depositing the amount he has suffered a lot and prayed to order for Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakh only) and other relief with interest.  

5.     The predecessor on seat registered the Complaint and notices were ordered as such OP No.1 and 2 appeared through their advocates and filed their Vakalat and Written Version. OP No.3 to 5 remained absent.

Brief facts of the Written Version of OPs:

That the OP had denied the contents of the Complaint and further stated that the complainant availed a loan to purchase a plots from OP No.1 and there is a condition as a site purchaser has to construct a residential house within 2 years and Op No.1 never delayed to process of his second loan application for construction of the house and OP No.1 is not a competent authority to sanction a loan nor to fix a payment of loan and OP No.1 collected the documents from the borrowers and forwarded to OP No.2 for approval and sanction.    

Op No.1 and 2 further submits that there is a no post of General Manager or Deputy Manager but the assistant General Manager and concerned staff, the sanctioning authority verified the documents in OP No.1’s office and informed the complainant that CIBIL is noticed that score is low and file has been returned to the complainant as such he is not eligible.

6.      The other allegation made by the complainant like the Ops are indulged in seducing the customers towards the bank scheme and that after the customers falls under the seduction the band started harassing and abstracting money from the innocent customer and the allegation that Ops that fully taken a signature on certain documents without giving full information Ops have use those documents and harassing the customers economically, mentally and socially is denied by the Ops. The rejection of home loan of the complainant is ultra-virus and against the rules made by the Reserve bank of India and CIBIL report does not fall under the check list of SBI housing loan prescribed format of OP bank.

7.      Further the OP submits that Ops No.1 and 2 is not responsible for deteriorated the quality and strength of the building the Ops are not responsible for the reimburse the loss caused to the complainant the legal notice issued by the complainant has been properly replied by the OP bank and as per the prayer of the complainant this forum have no jurisdiction to try the complaint, hence complaint may be dismiss with cost.

8.     In the background of the above said pleadings, the Complainant filed his affidavit and produced documents.

  On the other hand, OpNo1 and 2 filed the Written Version and chief affidavit and document filed on behalf of Op No.1 and 2.

On perusal of above documents and arguments heard on both the sides, this being the pleadings, the points arises before us for adjudication are as follows:

Our Answer to the above points are:-

Point No.1 – Negative,

Point No.2 – As per the final order.

R E A S O N S

9. POINT NO.1:  The Complainant filed this Complaint against the OP is that the OP made un trade practice and deficiency in service while sanctioning the 2^nd loan to the Complainant and harass the Complainant both mentally and physically. On the other hand, OP denied the Complaint and submits that they never harass the Complainant in any manner.

     10.    The counsel for the Op drawn our attention towards the letter in question for which complainant had argued that it is a sanctioned letter, on carefully scanning  the same it is very much clear that the said letter is not a  sanctioned letter it is a forwarding letter.  Further the counsel for op submitted that the complainant had availed a loan for purchase of two plots in the year 2013-14 and approached the Op for additional loan for construction of residential house.  But the complainant failed to repay the existing loan instalment regularly. 

     11. The OP No.1 collected the document and forwarded the same to RACPC Hubbli for approval.  The sanctioning authority verify the eligibility criteria of the complainant the op came to know that the complainant has availed a loan from various banks and monetary institutions and even CIBIL scoring is less.  Hence the OP had not approved the proposal of the complainant, the document produced by the complainant Ex.c-2 to 5 clears that the complainant had availed the loan from various financial institutions. 

     As per the complainant he has spend Rs;5,00,000/-(Rupees five lakh only) for to make good the title of the property .  The question arise before us here that the complainant had been spend this amount to make good of his title for his own property. Hence it can not be considered. 

     If the Op sanctioned 2^nd loan to the complainant it will be a burden to the complainant for repayment.  In such circumstance the complainant is not entitled for the 2^nd loan.  As such the Op has rejected the 2^nd proposal on the ground CIBIL scoring is less. Hence  refusing to give loan from the OP is justifiable and complainant utterly failed to prove his case .  Since we answer the Point No.1 in negative.

11.   POINT NO.2: For the reasons and discussion made above and finding on the above point, we proceed to pass a following: 

//ORDER//

1. The complaint is dismissed. No order on cost.
2. Send the copies of this Order to the parties free of cost.

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court 25^th day of January, 2017)