BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 05/05/2009

Date of Order : 31/12/2011

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 245/2009

Between

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is as follows :

The complainants are the wife and son of late A.M. Augustine who passed away on 12-04-2008 on account of a heart attack. The late A.M. Augustine had certain debts and he wanted to complete the education of the 2^nd complainant abroad. At the instance of the opposite party, the late A.M. Augustine and the 1^st complainant had to approach them to have a loan granted to the tune of Rs. 22,44,000/- to which the opposite party agreed. Accordingly, the loan application was submitted on 07-08-2008 and was sanctioned as per letter dated 06-09-2008. In the sanction letter, the loan amount is described as Rs. 22,44,000/-. However, the opposite party disbursed an amount of Rs. 6,80,000/- only. Late A.M. Augustine submitted a letter requesting to disburse the balance amount. The opposite party sent a reply stating that they are eligible only for Rs. 6,80,000/-. In the mean time, the 1^st complainant proceeded with the study of the 2^nd complainant in Newzeland and they could not withdraw from the contract of study. The late A.M. Augustine approached Banking Ombudsman to get his grievances redressed. But they rejected the complaint by looking into the documents produced by the bank. The conduct of the opposite party in offering to disburse Rs. 22,44,000/- to late A.M. Augustine and effecting payment only to the tune of Rs. 6,80,000/- clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant is entitled to get the balance loan amount of Rs. 15,64,000/- from the opposite party. Thus, the complainants are before us seeking direction against the opposite party either to disburse the balance loan amount or to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,80,000/- and permit the complainant to adjust the same in the disbursed amount together with costs of the proceedings.

2.The version of the opposite party :

Eventhough when the predecessor of the complainants disclosed the requirement of Rs. 22,44,000/-, the opposite party had specifically advised that the repayment of the loan amount would be Rs. 22,44,000/- after a period of 10 years with interest. Thus, under the scheme the deceased Augustine and the 1^st complainant were eligible for the lumpsum payment of Rs. 6,80,000/- alone which was paid in full to them. The mortgaged property was valued at Rs. 28.08 lakhs and the loan amount that would aggregate after 10 years was fixed at Rs. 22,44,000/- which is equivalent to 80% of the total value of the property to be repaid by the debtors. The communication sent to the visa officer was on the specific instruction given by the deceased that the total loan amount repayable after 10 years is Rs. 22.44 lakhs. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

3. The 1^st complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A4 were marked on the side of the complainants. The witness for the opposite party was examined as DW1 and Exts. B1 to B3 were marked on their side. Heard the counsel for the parties.

4. The points that arose for consideration are :-

1. Whether the complainants are entitled to get a compensation of Rs. 6,80,000/- from the opposite party?

2. Costs of the proceedings?

6. Point Nos. i. and ii. :- Admittedly, the 1^st complainant and her husband late A.M. Augustine approached the opposite party and requested for a loan of Rs. 22,44,000/-. According to the complainants, the opposite party sanctioned an amount of Rs. 22.44 lakhs and disbursed Rs. 6.8 lakhs. Further it is stated that the request for disbursement of the balance amount was turned down by the opposite party. Admittedly, the opposite party maintains that the loan sanctioned was Rs. 6.8 lakhs and the amount of Rs. 22.44 lakhs is the total amount to be repaid by the complainants in the loan account as stated above.

7. During evidence, at the request of the principal borrower late Augustine, the opposite party issued a letter to the Newzeland High Commission stating that the loan amount is Rs. 22.44 lakhs. The request of the deceased was marked as Ext. B1 (a). Ext. B2 is the sanction letter sent by the deceased as well as the 1^st complainant in which it is clearly stated that the loan amount is Rs. 6.8 lakhs and the amount of Rs. 22.44 lakhs includes interest till normally estimated maturity of the loan accrued. The document was signed on 09-09-2008 that means, the 1^st complainant was very much aware of the loan amount and the total amount to be repaid by them.

8. It is pertinent to note that the opposite party filed their proof affidavit and mounted the box to adduce evidence, but the complainants failed to cross-examine the witness. So, the evidence of DW1 stands unrebutted. In the above circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the opposite party had duly processed the loan application of the complainants and disbursed the same in time. There is nothing on record to the contrary.

9. In the light of the above findings, we have no option but to disallow this complaint. We dismiss the same. For the same reasons costs and compensation are disallowed.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31^st day of December 2011.

Forwarded/By Order, Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.

Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :-

=========