Complainant Balwant Singh through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has sought issuance of necessary directions to the opposite parties to advance him loan. Opposite party be also directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as damages for mental and physical tension alongwith interest @ 18% per annum till its realization.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he is an agriculturist by profession and he has his landed property at village Balagan, Tehsil and Distt.Gurdaspur and he has applied for the agricultural loan with the opposite party to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/-. As per requirement of the opposite party he fulfilled all the formalities for the advancement of the loan i.e. Mortagage deed, Non-Encumbrance certificate, no objection certificate dated 25.1.2014 and ultimately the land measuring 123 K-8M as shown in the Rapat No.237 dated 20.2.2014, was mortgaged with the opposite party bank, as is shown in the Rapat No.237 dated 20.2.2014. But the opposite party refused to advance loan to him and returned to him his loan case papers. After the return of the abovesaid papers, he received a setback physically and mentally at the hands of the opposite party. He has further pleaded that after adopting the formalities for advancing the loan, it was mandatory for the opposite party bank to advance the loan to him, which the opposite party bank did not. At this stage, he felt defamed and demoralized in the eyes of his friends and relatives and also in the eyes of general public due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. He approached the opposite party to pay him, assessed damages for many times, but ultimately the bank denied for it. Hence the present complaint.
3. Upon notice, the opposite party appeared and filed its written reply through the counsel taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable. On merits, it was admitted that the complainant executed Mortgage Deed in favour of the opposite party. The Non Encumbrance Certificate produced by him was false since the property was already mortgaged with Punjab and Sind Bank, Branch Gurdaspur. It was further submitted that at the time of moving application for the grant of loan and also at the time of execution of Mortgage Deed in favour of the Bank, the complainant never disclosed that he has already availed a loan limit of Rs.50,000/- as K.C.C. Limit from Punjab and Sind Bank, Branch Gurdaspur. A person can avail K.C.C.Limit from one Bank only. If he has availed K.C.C. Limit from another Bank, he cannot avail the same from the Bank without getting the previous K.C.C. Limit adjusted. The complainant had availed K.C.C.Limit from Punjab and Sind Bank, Gurdapur. He was also defaulter of that Bank. Therefore, he tried to avail the K.C.C. Loan Limit from the opposite party Bank without adjusting the loan limit availed from Punjab and Sind Bank. When the opposite party Bank was in the process of disbursing of the loan, the Manager of Punjab and Sind Bank, Branch Gurdaspur approached the opposite party Bank to the effect that the complainant is already defaulter of the Bank. Under these circumstances, the loan limit was not disbursed to him. No Due Certificate was issued to the complainant by the opposite party Bank and the charge created over his land was cleared. He was duly informed by the opposite party Bank that since he is defaulter of Punjab and Sind Bank, therefore under Rules the loan cannot be released to him. The documents file was returned to him. Moreover the Bank cannot be compelled to release the loan. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs
4. Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 and Ex.C6 and closed the evidence.
5. Opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Inderjit Singh Branch Manager, Pb.Gramin Bank Ex.OP-1, alongwith other documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP-4 and closed the evidence.
6. Both the parties have produced/filed their respective affidavits and other related documents in evidence to support their pleadings/objections on record and the learned counsels for the litigants have duly put forth their respective arguments. We have carefully considered and perused all the available material while adjudicating the present complaint.
7. From the pleadings and evidence on record we observe that the present dispute pertains to ‘sanction of credit facilities’ by the OP Bank to the complainant. In the light of the settled law on the subject matter favoring extension of ‘un-fettered discretion and free-hand’ to the Bankers in advancing loans, we are not inclined to adjudicate the present complaint or even to express any categorical specific opinion except the one in general that like all other discretionary authority, the ‘financial discretion’ delegated to the Bankers need be exercised (by them) in an utmost ‘judicious’ manner and invariably via the media of ‘speaking orders’ reduced to writing for a further review/revision by the higher ups to award ‘fairness & transparency’ to the exercise. The credit facility need be preferably declined at one level higher than that of the sanctioning authority.
8. In the light of the all above, we ORDER for the dismissal of the present complaint with however no orders as to its costs and also set the complainant at liberty to approach the Head Office of the OP Bank for ‘review/revision’ of the Branch’s refusal etc.
9. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
August 06, 2015 Member.
*MK*
