Karnataka

Chamrajnagar

CC/71/2011

A.G.Santhosh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Union Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

MR.CRY

26 Apr 2012

ORDER

ORDER

 

1. The complainants have filed the complaint alleging deficiency of service by the O.P. to them.

 

1. The complainants case in brief are that they are the customers of O.P. having bank account with it. They had applied for housing loan of Rs.5,00,000/- by mortgaging the house  worth of Rs.15,00,000/- and also gave collateral security.

 

1. The mortgage was registered for Rs.5,00,000/- and E.M.I. charges were also fixed for repayment of Rs.5,00,000/- The process fee was also paid  for Rs.5,00,000/-. The O.P. further released only Rs.3,00,000/- and refused to release remaining loan amount of Rs.2,00,000/-.

 

1. The complainants requested the O.P. to release remaining amount. They had also lodged complaint on 17/05/2011 against the O.P. to the Reserve Bank of India.

 

1. The O.P. had verified the documents of the complainants before processing the loan application. The house remained unfinished an account of non-sanctioning of remaining of loan amount.

 

1. The O.P. has admitted about applying for loan by the complainant and also given security for Rs.5,00,000/-

 

1. The O.P. has stated that the loan was sanctioned as per I.T. returns filed by the complainants and they are eligible for Rs.3,00,000/- only a per I.T. returns given by the complainants.

 

1. The security given by the complainants were not sufficient  to release loan amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and as such the O.P. has released Rs.3,00,000/- only. The complainants are not entitled to the amount claimed by them.

 

1. The complainants themselves have settled the matter before Ombudsman and requested to return the processing charges. After settled before the Ombudsman, the complainants themselves  given representation to the O.P. to repay processing charges accordingly. The O.P. has reimbursed Rs.1,200/- towards processing charges of the difference amount.

 

1. The O.P. has given prompt service to the complainant and there is no deficiency of service. The complainants have given complaint against the O.P. to the higher authority Ombudsman and there by the complainant has given mental agony to the O.P.

 

1. The following points arises for consideration.
   1. Whether the complainants shows the deficiency of service by the O.P. to them?
   2. To what order the parties are entitled?

 

1. The findings on the above points are that

Point No.1: Partly affirmative.

Point No.2: As per order.

 

        REASONS

1. Point No.1:- The admitted facts are that  the application given by the complainants to O.P. to sanction the loan. The O.P. had obtained mortgage deed for Rs.5,00,000/- as well process fee taken for Rs.5.00lakhs and instead of advancing Rs.5.00 lakhs it has advanced  only Rs.3.00 lakhs.

 

1. The complainants requested the O.P. to advance remaining amount of Rs.2.00 lakhs loan  and this has not been done  by the O.P. and also ininspite of complaint given to Ombudsman.

 

1. The complainant approached the S.B.M. and S.B.M. advanced Rs.5.00 lakhs by taking over Rs.3.00 lakhs  which had taken by the complainant from the O.P.

 

1. The question would be whether there was deficiency of service or not in not advancing Rs.5.00 lakhs.

 

1. The learned counsel appearing for the O.P. has submitted that the complainant’s I.T. returns were taken into consideration in order to find out the quantum of loan amount to be advanced to him and in particular taking into consideration repayment capacity. He has further submitted that after taking into consideration these things, the loan has been advanced only Rs.3.00 lakhs and not Rs.5.00 lakhs and therefore there is no deficiency of service by the O.P.

 

1. As stated above the documents have been taken for advancing Rs.5.00 lakhs and only Rs.3.00 lakhs has been sanctioned by the O.P. in March 2010. The complainants were in need of remaining amount and approached S.B.M. in the month of February 2011. The S.B.M. advanced Rs.5.00 lakhs loan by taking over  Rs.3.00 lakhs which had been advanced by the O.P. to the complainant and advanced remaining loan of Rs.2.00 lakhs to the complainant.

 

1. It has to be appreciated that the loan of Rs.3.00 lakhs has been advanced by the O.P. in March 2010 and S.B.M. has processed the application of the complainants in the month of February 2011 within the financial year of 2010-11 i.e. within a  year where  in the income tax returns had not yet been field by the complainants. If this is taken into consideration, it could be said that there is deficiency of service by the O.P. in not advancing loan of Rs.5.00 lakhs even though there was solvency, repayment capacity and mortgage deed had been executed by the complainants for Rs.5.00 lakhs.

 

1. It can be said from the above that there was deficiency of service by the O.P. to the complainants. Hence, point no.1 is affirmative.

 

1. POINT NO.2:-The admitted facts are also that the complainants had given complaint to the Ombudsman  as the O.P. has advanced only Rs.3.00 lakhs instead of advancing Rs.5.00 lakhs. Subsequently the letter has been given by the complainant to the O.P. which in turn  as per settlement, process fee has been credited to his S.B. account.

 

1. The learned counsel appearing for O.P. has submitted  that the matter has been settled and the complaint is not maintainable and therefore no compensation can be granted for deficiency of service even if any.

 

1. The Forum has to find out whether the Ombudsman has jurisdiction to grant compensation for the deficiency of service or not. Admittedly the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to grant compensation  for deficiency of service and hence the complainant is not prevented from obtaining relief from the Forum to that extent.

 

1. The complainant had claimed compensation for mental agony before the Ombudsmen which has not been decided  on merits and Ombudsmen has sent a letter to the complainant that the bank has settled the matter and therefore the complainant has does not survive.

 

1. As stated earlier  a compromise talk has taken place and as per compromise talk process fee has been credited to S.B. account of the complainants and the question  would be whether the complainant has given up his right of obtaining compensation  for deficiency of service  in view of returning of process fee for remaining not advanced amount of Rs.2.00 lakhs by the O.P. The O.P. has not been able to produce any material to show the complainant has given up his right to obtain compensation for deficiency of service from the O.P. except returning  process fee which had been taken by the O.P. for processing entire loan of Rs.5.00 lakhs and on the otherhand it had advanced only Rs.3.00 lakhs and processing fee had been returned for not advancing Rs.2.00 lakhs.  Considering this it can be said that the complainants are not prevented from obtaining compensation for deficiency of service. Apart from this  there  can not estoppel  against statute. When the statute gives right to obtain relief that cannot be prevented by the person.

 

1. It can be said that the complaint brought by the complainant is maintainable. The complainant is not entitled to  any compensation for mental agony as he has given up the same  where he had claimed the cost.

 

1. In view of the above following

 

ORDER

The complaint is allowed in part.

1. The complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs.3,000/- for deficiency of service.
2. The complainant is entitled to cost of Rs.500/- from O.P. being the cost of the proceedings.