Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Room No. 208 2^nd Floor, District Administrative Complex, Tarn Taran

Consumer Complaint No   :         67 of  2019

Date of Institution                      :        22.08.2019

Date of Decision               :        29.04.2022

Amandeep Kaur wife of Lakhbir Singh resident of Khem Karan Road Patti, Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran since deceased through her legal representatives:-

1. Lakhbir Singh husband of the complainant Amandeep Kaur,
2. Shamsher Singh son of Amandeep Kaur,
3. Amarpreet Kaur daughter of Amandeep Kaur all residents of Patti, Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran

                                                                             …..Complainants

Versus

The Tarn Taran Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Branch Office Patti, Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran through its Branch Manager.

                                                                             …Opposite Party

Complaint Under Section  11, 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act

Quorum:               Sh. Charanjit Singh, President

Ms. Nidhi Verma Member

For Complainant                     Sh. Om Parkash Advocate

For Opposite Party                            Sh. K.M. Gupta Advocate

PER:

Charanjit Singh, President

1        The complainant has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Consumer Protection Act under Section 11, 12 and 13 against the opposite party on the allegations that complainant-Amandeep Kaur visited the opposite party to obtain a study loan of Rs.15 Lacs for her daughter namely Amarpreet Kaur alongwith her husband Lakhbir Singh on 25.5.2019. The complainant requested to the branch manager to advance loan to her daughter and the branch manager has promised to advance a loan of Rs. 15 Lacs which the complainant was needed to pay the fee to Canada University for her daughter to get higher study at Canada. The opposite party told to the complainant to bring the collateral security/ guarantee documents to get the loan and branch Manager fully assured the complainant to advance loan in favour of her daughter Amarpreet Kaur. The branch manager asked to the complainant to get the application for applying the loan of Rs. 15 Lacs from their head office situated at Tarn Taran. The complainant got it from the said head office. The complainant alongwith her daughter and husband went to the Bank next day to apply loan of Rs. 15 Lacs and submitted all the documents which were required by the bank to advance study loan of Rs. 15 lacs. The Branch Manager after scrutinized all documents and found in order and said to the complainant to get  the valuer report from the approved valuer of his bank namely Bhalla Associates. The complainant has got the value for the same from the above said valuer on 2.6.2019. The complainant alongwith her daughter and husband visited the bank on 2.9.2019 and submitted all the documents alongwith valuer report to the bank manager. Thereafter, Branch Manager told the complainant to come on 4.6.2019 and assured the complainant to advance the loan of Rs. 15 Lacs in favour of daughter of complainant namely Amarpreet Kaur.  The complainant alongwith her daughter and husband again visited the bank on 4.6.2019 to obtain the loan but Branch Manager refused to advance the loan in favour of daughter of complainant namely Amarreet Kaur and complainant requested the Branch Manager to advance the loan but of no avail. Later on, Branch Manager ready to advance the loan in favour of the complainant instead of daughter of the complainant.  The complainant agreed to obtain loan in her favour because her daughter would have to pay the Canada University Fee before 15^th June, 2019. The Branch Manager told to the complainant to get new application for loan of Rs. 15 lacs from the head office situated at Tarn Taran and the complainant got the same from the above head office. The complainant completed the documents which required by the bank and has submitted to the Branch Manager on the same day. Thereafter, the Branch Manager told to the complainant to get the legal opinion from the bank penal Advocate Ajay Mehta Advocate district Courts Tarn Taran and complainant got the same from the above said advocate and submitted all the documents to the Branch Manager and he told the complainant to come after one week. The complainant alongwith her daughter and husband visited the bank after one week to get the loan but the branch manager has refused to advance the loan to the complainant. The complainant again humbly requested to advance the loan in her favour but branch Manager did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Thereafter, the Branch Manger was ready to advance the loan in favour of the complainant’s daughter Amarpreet Kaur instead of complainant.  The complainant alongwith her daughter and husband went to the Bank to receive the loan amount after 3 days but the branch Manger told the complainant to deposit the nominal membership fee before getting the loan. The complainant said to the Branch Manager that she herself,  her husband and Charanjit Singh who is guarantor to this loan were already paid nominal membership fee before getting the loan. The complainant said to the Branch Manager that she herself, her husband and Charanjit Singh who is guarantor to this loan were already nominal members to this bank but Branch Manager did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant and complainant paid Rs. 600/- (Rs. 200 per member) on 18.6.2019, the Branch Manager issued the same serial Number which were already issued to the complainant on 25.1.2017. The Branch Manager has received forty blank forms signed cheques from the complainant, her husband, her daughter and her son in law namely Gurkirat Singh who has no concern to this loan. The complainant has already submitted the property of worth approximately Rs. 80 Lacs assessed by approved valuer also to get Rs. 15 lacs which is too much higher against the loan sanctioned by the opposite party and against the bank rules. The Branch manager has received all the requirements from the complainant but did not advance the loan on 18.6.2019. Moreover, the behavior of the Branch Manager/ opposite party is very rude towards the complainant and general public. The opposite party deliberately kept putting of the matter on one or other false pretext. A legal notice was sent to the opposite party by the complainant through his counsel Sh. Om Parkash and Navan Kumar, Advocate Tarn Taran on 17.7.2019, but the opposite party did not give any response to this notice and no appropriate step has been taken in this matter by the opposite party. The opposite party is guilty of fault, imperfection, short coming and inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance of service. The complainant approached the Head office at Tarn Taran and after intervening by the head office the Branch Manager advanced the loan of Rs. 10 Lacs instead of 15 Lads on 4.7.2019, whereas the complainant has already been paid the CAD5025 on June 13^th 2019. Show how the complainant has arranged this amount from her relatives because the branch Manager/ opposite party assured to the complainant to advance the loan within 1/2 days but the Branch Manager did not advance the same. Due to this reason, the complainant felt insulted before her relatives not to return the money within fixed time. The opposite party returned those documents in which the complainant applied for a loan of Rs. 15 lacs with made cutting in those applications.  The complainant has prayed that the opposite party may kindly be ordered to pay Rs. 10 Lacs as compensation on account of mental and physical harassment, humiliation before the near and dear caused to the complainant and litigation charges to the tune of 50,000/- in the interest of justice, equity and fair play. Alongwith the complaint, the complainant has placed on record her affidavit Ex. C-1 alongwith documents i.e. elf attested copy of letter of offer dated 24.5.2019 Ex. C-2,  self attested copy of receipt of CAD5025 Ex. C-3, Self attested copy of application for loan by Amarpreet Kaur Ex. C-4, Self attested copy of application for loan by Amandeep Kaur Ex. C-5, Self attested copy of Valuer Report Ex. C-6, self attested copy of application for Nomination Members of Lakhbir Singh Ex. C-7, self attested copy of application for nominal members of Amandeep Kaur Ex. C-8, Self attested copy of surety bond of Charanjit Singh Ex. C-9, Self attested copy of receipt of Rs. 200/- dated 18.6.2019 Ex. C-10, Self attested copy of receipt of Rs. 200/- dated 18.6.2019 Ex. C-11, Self attested copy of receipt of Rs. 200/- dated 18.6.2019 Ex. C-13, self attested copy of Income Tax Return of Amandeep Kaur Ex. C-14, Self attested copy of ass book Main Branch namely Amandeep Kaur Ex. C-15, Self attested copy of passbook Branch Office at Patti namely Amarpreet Kaur Ex. C-16, Legal notice dated 17.7.2019 Ex. C-17, Receipt dated 17.7.2019 Ex. C-18, Self attested coy of sale deed dated 30.6.2016 Ex. C-19.

2        Notice of this complaint was sent to the opposite parties and opposite party appeared through counsel and filed written version by taking the preliminary objections that the bank is an independent and autonomous statutory body established under provisions of Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 and the provisions of said Act are fully applicable to all the disputes with respect to the business of bank and can only be decided through arbitration as provided under Section 55 of the Punjab Co operative Societies Act, 1961. The present complaint is abuse of process of law. The complaint is totally false and baseless and has been filed with ulterior motive and is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs. On merits, it was pleaded that the demand of documents by way of collateral security/ guarantee is as per rules of the bank applicable to such like cases. There is no question of the opposite party for giving any assurance for grant of any specific loan amount to the complainant. The proforma applicable application form was required to be obtained and to submit the same after filling up all the details as required in the said application. The value of the property given as collateral security/ guarantee and the valuable of the same is to be assessed by approved valuer of the bank after inspecting the property and give his report about the valuation of the property offered as collateral security/ guarantee. The loan is advanced to a person as per rules and set practice of the bank and there is no personal discretion of the branch Manager or any other official of the bank in the matter. The opposite party has no knowledge about payment of fees by daughter of the complainant to Canada University before 15.6.2019. New application was demanded for loan of Rs. 15,00,000/- which the complainant had got from the Head office at Tarn Taran and submitted the same to the opposite parties on the same day. However, in every loan case before sanctioning of amount, the legal opinion of the bank Advocate/ Legal Advisor is required to be obtained with respect to title of the property given as security/ guarantee.  Grant of loan to any individual he/ she is required to become a member of the bank which is a cooperative bank and the loan is granted only to member of the bank on the basis of security/ guarantee either by way of property or  personal and is to be given by the member of the bank and as such, the complainant and guarantors were required to become nominal members of the bank and there is no illegality in the same. It is matter of record about requiring to deposit membership fee on 10.9.2019. The loan of any amount cannot be sanctioned/ disbursed on the basis of security/ guarantee equivalent to same value which has always to be on higher value side than the loan sanctioned. The scrutiny/ assessment and appraisal of the loan application and the security/ guarantee documents and its value is to be done at various levels before sanction of the loan, as per rules of the bank and on the basis of assessments and appraisal a loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- was permissible to be advanced to the complainant and which was duly sanctioned and advanced and the same as withdrawn by the complainant without any objection of any kind either to the opposite party or to head office of the bank at Tarn Taran. The amount of sanctioned loan was withdrawn immediately on the day of advancement itself. There is no fixed time frame within which the loan is to be advanced to any applicant. Sanction/ grant of loan from the bank is not a legal right of anybody. The sanctioning and advancement of loan is based on various types of verifications, assessment and appraisal are also to be made by the competent and authorized officials of the bank. The grant of loan is sole discretion of the bank and the bank cannot be forced to advance loan to anybody and can also not be forced to grant loan of any specific amount. The opposite party has prayed that denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same. Alongwith the written version, the opposite party has placed on record affidavit of Rupinder Singh Branch Manager The Tarn Taran Central Cooperative Bank Branch Patti Ex. OP/1.

3        The complainant has filed rejoinder to the written version filed by the complainant and denied the allegations of the opposite party and reiterated the stand as taken in the complaint and prayed that the present complaint may be allowed. Alongwith the rejoinder, the complainant has laced on record copy of tuition fee Ex. C-20.

4        We have heard the Ld. counsel for the complainant and opposite party and have carefully gone through the record placed on the file.

5        In the present complaint, dispute is that the complainant has applied loan for Rs. 15,00,000/- for her daughter and the opposite party has granted the loan of Rs. 10,00,000/-.  The complainant has alleged that she has fulfilled all the formalities regarding the grant of loan of Rs. 15,00,000/- and she fulfilled all the requirement but the opposite party has issued loan to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- only and due to issuance of less loan, the complainant has suffered financial loss.  The complainant prayed Rs. 10,00,000/- as compensation and damages on account of mental and physical harassment and Rs. 50,000/- as litigation expenses. To support her case, the  complainant has placed on record Judgments titled Standard Charted Bank Ltd Vs Dr. B.N. Raman in Civil appeal No. 2982 of 2006 date of decision 14.7.2006 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, Vimal Chandra Grover Vs Bank of India in civil appeal No. 15701 of 1996 date of Decision  26.4.2000 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The complainant has placed these authorities just to prove that he is a consumer whereas this complaint has already been admitted by this commission , it means he is a consumer. On the other hands, it is admitted by the opposite party that the complainant has applied loan of Rs. 15,00,000/- for her daughter with the opposite party The opposite party has not given any assurance of grant of specific loan amount.  The loan is advanced to a person as per rules and set practice of the bank and there is no personal discretion of the branch Manager or any other official of the bank in the matter. The loan of any amount can be sanctioned/ disbursed on the basis of security/ guarantee equivalent to same value which has always to be on higher value side than the loan sanctioned. The scrutiny/ assessment and appraisal of the loan application and the security/ guarantee documents and its value is to be done at various levels before sanction of the loan. As per rules of the bank and on the basis of assessments and appraisal a loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- was permissible to be advanced to the complainant and which was duly sanctioned and advanced and the same as withdrawn by the complainant without any objection of any kind either to the opposite party or to head office of the bank at Tarn Taran. The amount of sanctioned loan was withdrawn immediately on the day of advancement itself. There is no fixed time frame within which the loan is to be advanced to any applicant. Sanction/ grant of loan from the bank is not a legal right of anybody. The grant of loan is sole discretion of the bank and the bank cannot be forced to advance loan to anybody and can also not be forced to grant loan of any specific amount and the opposite party prayed that the present complaint may be dismissed. To support its case, the opposite party has placed on record Judgments 2003(3) CPJ 181 titled Velappan Nair, Manager, State Co-op Bank and Anr. Vs K.P. Suran of the Hon’ble Natinal Consume Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, U.P. Financial Corporation Vs M/s Naini Oxygen & Acetylene Gas Ltd. in Civil appeal No. 568 of 1987 date of Decision 22.11.1994  of Hon’ble Supreme court of India and Md. Maharashtra State Financial Corporation & Ors Vs Sanjay Shankarsa Mamarde in Civil Appeal No. 7189 of 2002 date of decision 9.7.2010 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. 

6        The complainant has obtained the loan which was credited in his account and same was withdrawn on same day without any protest meaning thereby he was agreed to this amount as such, at this stage he cannot raise the voice against the opposite party regarding deficiency in service. The complainant has failed to establish on record that there was any promise made by the manager to sanction loan to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/-. Further complainant has also failed to prove the malice and animosity against the complainant. The reliance placed on the file by the counsel for the opposite party supported the contention of the opposite party. In the case titled Velappan Nair, Manager, State Co-op Bank and Anr. Vs K.P. Suran clearly shows that sanctioning of loan is within discretion of Bank. The opposite party in the case did not have any vested right of being provided the entire amount of loan applied for, as sanctioning of loan is within the discretion of the bank. The Banks and corporations have their own constitution and rules to abide by and as per them, they are duty bound. As such, in the present case bank is at discretion to grant the loan as per the rules and regulations of the corporation/ Bank. The complainant is failed to prove on record as to what loss he has suffered and what is deficiency of the opposite party.

7        The complainant has availed the loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- without any protest and the complainant is using the same and the complainant has availed the loan for sending her daughter to abroad and as per averments  in the complaint. The opposite party has issued the loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- instead of Rs. 15,00,000/- is genuine because in Judgment Velaan Nair Manager, Kerla State Co-o Bank & Anr Vs K.. Suran’ (Supra) the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi held that loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- applied. Land worth Rs. 75,000/- offered for mortgage. 50% of value of land could have been sanctioned by way of loan. Loan of Rs. 35,000/- sanctioned. Deficiency in service alleged. Complaint filed. Sanctioning of loan within discretion of Bank. No deficiency in service proved. Order allowing complaint set aside. Revision allowed. As such, sanctioning of loan is discretion of the Bank/opposite party. There is no deficiency in services on the part of the opposite party by sanctioning the loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- instead of Rs. 15,00,000/-. The authorities placed on record by the complainant are not covered to the facts of the present case and are based on different facts and circumstances.

8        In view of above discussion, there is no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. This complaint could not be decided within prescribed period due to heavy pendency of cases in this commission, additional charges of President in other District Commissions as well as duty of Bench at Camp Court, Amritsar and due to COVID-19. Copy of order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Commission

29.4.2022