Order No. 25 dt. 17/02/2017
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant for obtaining loan applied to o.ps. and o.ps. sent a letter to the complainant informing that the loan cannot be sanctioned, thereafter the complainant visited the o.p. no.1 and requested them to disclose the internal criteria that led the o.ps. to disapprove the loan of the complainant. The complainant did not get any reply, thereafter lawyer’s notice was sent and subsequently the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. to pay compensation of rs.15 lakhs for non sanctioning of the loan and also for litigation cost of Rs.50,000/-.
The o.ps. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complainant. It was stated that the complainant approached the o.p. bank for availing of a car loan of Rs.9,24,000/-. On receiving the said application o.p. bank expressed their inability to sanction the said loan and the said fact was informed to the complainant on 16.9.11. It was stated that in the loan application form certain important notes among which one is that “that the receipt of your application form for the loan does not imply automatic approval your loan by HDFC Bank Ltd.” The complainant’s application did not meet the internal criteria of the bank and there is no question of hampering the social prestige of the complainant. It was specifically stated that the complainant never availed of any service from o.ps. nor any relationship between the parties and as such by no stretch of reasoning the complainant falls within the purview of consume or purported dispute is a dispute within the meaning of C.P. Act. In view of the said fact o.ps. prayed for dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the complainant applied for car loan from o.ps.
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of o.ps.
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. lawyer for the complainant applied for car loan but the same was refused, because of such refusal of the loan the prestige of the complainant has been lowered in the public estimation for which the complainant filed this case praying for compensation and other reliefs.
Ld. lawyer for o.ps. argued that in the loan application itself it was mentioned that the receipt of the application form for the loan does not imply any automatic approval of the loan by HDFC Bank Ltd. HDFC Bank Ltd. will decide the quantum of the loan at its soled discretion. It was also said in the said application form that HDFC Bank Ltd. reserves the right to reject any application without assigning any reasons. The complainant after going through the details of the terms and conditions of the said loan application form and after going through the important note specifically mentioned in the application form was fully aware that the non granting of the loan dependent upon the bank, therefore the case filed by the complainant is a misconceived one and the same should be dismissed.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant at the time of filing the application form for obtaining loan mentioned his income as well as he submitted his income tax return to show his income. On perusal of the application form as well as important note mentioned in the application form itself we find that it is the discretion of the bank to grant loan to an applicant depends upon certain criteria and after applying those criteria since the complainant was found unsuitable therefore the loan was not granted to the complainant. The complainant made an allegation against the bank to RBI and RBI rejected the contention of the complainant by giving a reply that RBI does not interfere in the commercial dealings of a bank unless there has been violation of any specific direction / guidelines of RBI. It appears from the record that the application of the complainant was not entertained by RBI, the application form clearly discloses that it is the discretion of the bank to grant loan. Apart from the said fact the complainant disclosed his income of Rs.1,95,861/- and he paid income tax only Rs.2350/- and he wanted to purchase an Innova car by taking loan from o.p. bank. A borrower having such low income cannot expect to purchase an Innova car and the bank rightly rejected the application of the complainant and in the interest of the bank the loan was not granted, if the loan would have been granted it would have been difficult for the bank to realize the loan amount from the borrower. Therefore we hold that the case filed by the complainant is not maintainable and the complainant will not be entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Since the complainant filed a frivolous and vexatious complaint the complainant should be imposed cost of Rs.5000/-. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.251/2013 is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.ps. The complainant is directed to pay to the o.ps. a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only for filing a frivolous and vexatious complaint before this Forum within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the o.ps. till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
