PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. Counsel for the H.D.F.C. Bank Limited, the petitioner in this case is present. None for the respondent/complainant. The case was partly heard yesterday on 28.10.2013. It appears that the complainant/respondent is not interested in pursuing her case. 2. The complainant, Smt. Uma Nagar applied for loan of Rs. 35.85 lakh against her property to the HDFC Bank Limited. The said loan was sanctioned. The Bank also charged Rs.44,272/- as loan processing and administration charges and Rs.3900 as insurance. The complainant/respondent also signed 40 blank cheques but did not produce the property documents. 3. The petitioner Bank disbursed loan in the sum of Rs. 22.98 lakh only. We have perused the loan application form, which is produced today. Its relevant portion runs as follows:- “1.Name of Institution | GE MONEY | 1.Name of Institution | ICICI BANK | Loan Type | Mortgate | Loan Type | P.L. | Loan Amount | 23,800,000/- | Loan Amount | 200,000/- | Tenure of Loan | 156 months | Tenure of Loan | 36 | EMI Amount | 26142/- | EMI Amount | 6644/- | EMI Paid | 32 months | EMI Paid | 35” |
4. It clearly goes to show that the respondent/complainant had mis-led the Bank. She stated that her loan amount is Rs. 23,80,000/- , which was paid to the complainant but she did not get the above said cheque in the sum of Rupees 22.98 lakh encashed. Thereafter, a complaint was filed before the District Forum, wherein the following prayers were made:- “A. That award, Rs. 3900/-, Rs. 44272/-, Rs. 876/-, total rupees d49048/- with interest & penalty, which is received by the Opponent from the Complainant. Also, order to the Opponent, to close the Loan Account No. 3217792 without charging any penalty or charge from the Complainant with immediate effect and does not demand any amount or dues from the Complainant in respect of the same. B. That award Rs. 100000/- as compensation for mental and physical agony suffered by the Complainant. C. That award Rs. 5500/- as costs of the complaint. D. That award, any other relief, which is reasonable and adequate in the advice of the Hon’ble Forum.” 5. The District Forum accepted the complaint and ordered that the petitioner bank shall pay Rs.49048/- and Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and losses and costs of Rs.5500/- to the complainant. It was further ordered that compliance of the order shall be made within a period of one month otherwise, the complainant shall be entitled to receive an interest @ 12% per annum. The District Forum rejected the other claims. It was also noted by the District Forum that the petitioner Bank presented the cheques given by the complainant repeatedly, which were dishonored due to the fact that payment was stopped by the Complainant through her bankers. It is surprising to note that the District Forum did not return to any findings that why the rest of the amount was not disbursed. Record also reveals that 29 cheques were returned to the complainant. 6. Aggrieved by that order, HDFC Bank Ltd. preferred an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the appeal. 7. Counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention towards Annexure 2, which was sent by the complainant wherein she made request that amount of Rs. 35.85 lakh should be disbursed in her favour but vide her letter dated 30.06.2008 she also informed the Bank not to disburse the further amount. The relvent portion runs as follows:- “I applied for loan against property. Vide my letter dt. 30/06/2008 with all relevant facts and figures regarding aforesaid loan requesting you to stop further disbursement for loan Account no. 3217792. Due to non disbursement of loan in stipulated time and requested you to return my Processing fee, all blank cheques, as well as a request to not to lodge any cheque in my bank account.” 8. It is thus clear that the complainant herself withdrew form taking the further disbursement. Her first and foremost duty was after accepting the loan of Rs. 22.98 lakh, she was to deposit the property documents with the HDFC Bank Limited. She did not deposit that documents and asked them not to disburse the same. There is no deficiency on the part of HDFC Bank, the petitioner. It is clear that the Fora below did not try to winnow the truth from the falsehood. They should have perused the loan application form, which makes it clear that the loan was given against the documents and the complainant had agreed to receive the loan after depositing the documents. Loan is not sanctioned by the Clerks but by the higher authorities, which entail a lot of time. If somebody affixes the signatures on blank documents, he or she does it at her own peril. 9. Under these circumstances, we accept the Revision Petition, set aside the orders passed by the For a below and dismiss the complaint. .…..………………………… (J. M. MALIK, J.) PRESIDING MEMBER .…..………………………… (S. M. KANTIKAR) MEMBER At about 12-30 P.M., Mr. Umesh Nagpal, counsel for the respondent appears. He submits that his train came late. He is apprised of the order. | 
