National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Velappan Nair, Manager, Kerala State ... vs K.P. Suran on 8 August, 2003
Equivalent citations: III(2003)CPJ181(NC)
ORDER
K.S. Gupta, J. (Member)
1. This revision is directed against the order dated 9.8.2002 of Kerala Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvanthapuram dismissing the appeal against the order dated 25.6.2002 of a District Forum whereby petitioner-Bank was directed to pay Rs. 12,000/- as compensation with interest and cost to the respondent/complainant.
2. Complaint was filed, inter alia, alleging that respondent applied for loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- for starting vegetable shop to the petitioner bank. Respondent incurred Rs. 18,000/- in procuring the documents and certificates demanded by the bank. Bank sanctioned loan of Rs. 35,000/- which was totally insufficient to start business. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of petitioners, the respondent filed complaint. In the written version, the stand taken was that sanctioning of loan is in the discretion of bank. Fifteen cents of land belonging to the respondent was located in an interior village and so (SIC) valued at (SIC) As per rule only 50% of the land value could be given as loan and accordingly, amount of Rs. 35,000/- was sanctioned by way of loan to the respondent.
3. We have heard Shri Roy Abraham for petitioners and the respondent.
4. On 17.7.2003, respondent showed us a certificate from the Tehsildar of area which indicated that the value of land owned by respondent was Rs. 1,80,000/-. Shri Abraham took time to verify if the certificate shown was before the District Forum or not. On instruction from petitioner bank, Shri Abraham has made statement that the said certificate was filed by the respondent in District Forum. Needless to repeat that the stand taken by petitioner bank in written version is that the value of land to be mortgaged by the respondent was only Rs. 75,000/-, it being situated ion an interior village and 50% of the value of land alone could have been sanctioned by way of loan. It was for the respondent who alleges the value of land to be Rs. 1,80,000/- to have led cogent evidence before the District Forum that the value was Rs. 1,80,000/- instead of Rs. 75,000/- which he failed to adduce. Further, the respondent did not have any vested right of being provided the entire amount of loan applied for, as sanctioning of loan was within the discretion of the petitioner bank. There was, thus, no deficiency in service on the part of petitioner bank in not sanctioning Rs. 1,00,000/- as loan to the respondent. Impugned order suffers from material irregularity and, therefore, deserves to be set aside in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
5. Accordingly, while allowing revision, the orders passed by fora below are set aside and complaint dismissed. No order as to costs.