State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1.Balasaheb Kaushabapu Jadhav vs 1.Branch Manager,State Bank Of ... on 8 April, 2015
1 F.A. No. 248-12
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSIONJ,MAHARASHTRA,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
First Appeal No. FA/12/248
(Arisen out of Order Dated 08/02/2012 in Case No. 496/2010 of
District Aurangabad)
1. Balasaheb Kaushabapu Jadhav
R/O.Mahili(Manjri)
Tq.Gangapur,Dist.Aurangabad.
Aurangabad.
Maharashtra
2. Dadasaheb Kaushabapu Jadhav
R/O.Maholi(Manjri)
Tq.Gangapur,Dist.Gangapur.
Aurangabad.
Maharashtra
3. Appasaheb Kaushabapu Jadhav
R/O.Maholi(Manjri),Tq.Gangapur.
Dist.Aurangabad.
Maharashtra ...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Branch Manager,State Bank Of
Haidrabad(Main Branch)
Aurangabad.
Maharashtra
2. Branch Manager,State Bank Of
Hydrabad,
Branch-
Nevergaon,Tq.Gangapur,Dist.Aurangabad.
Aurangabad.
Maharashtra ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'ABLE MR. S.M.SHEMBOLE PRESIDING
MEMBER
HON'ABLE MR. K.B.GAWALI MEMBER For the Appellant: Adv. Shri. S. R. Gawali holding for Adv. Shri. Rahul Joshi.
For the Respondent: Adv. Shri. R. S. Kurhe holding for 2 F.A. No. 248-12 Adv. Shri. S. R. Deshpande.
- :: ORAL JUDGMENT :: -
(Delivered on 8th April, 2015) PER HON'ABLE MR. K.B.GAWALI MEMBER
1. This appeal is filed by original complainants against the judgment and order dated 08.02.2012 passed by District Consumer Forum, Aurangabad in consumer complaint No. 496/2010, whereby complaint is partly allowed directing the respondent No.1/org. opponent No.1 to pay Rs.7500/- towards mental harassment within a period of 30 days. The respondent No.2 is the original opponent No.2. For better understanding appellants are hereinafter termed as the "complainants", whereas respondent Nos. 1 & 2 who are the officers of State Bank of Hyderabad are hereinafter jointly referred as "opponent bank".
2. It is the case of the complainant that they are farmers and had approached the opponent bank for loan under the NHB (National Horticulture Board) Scheme of the Central Government. Accordingly the opponent bank vide its letter dated 12.04.2008 had given No objection Certificate for sanction of loan and therefore they submitted proposal to the National Horticulture Board at Nashik for letter of intent by their application dated 02.05.2008. Accordingly the letter of intent was issued by the National Horticulture Board by letter dated 25.07.2008. Thereafter the complainants approached to the opponent bank and also submitted application dated 09.09.2008 for sanction of loan. However, the opponent bank by its letter dated 14.10.2008 intimated them that their claim does not fall within it's jurisdiction and hence the loan cannot be sanctioned.
Thereafter, the complainants by their application dated 29.05.2009 submitted proposal for sanction of loan. However despite completing all formalities and required documents the loan was not sanctioned. It is also submitted by the complainants that, as per the letter of intent, loan of Rs.15,00,000/- was sanctioned and for that purpose the opponent bank 3 F.A. No. 248-12 had suggested to execute the said mortgage deed on 21.01.2010. But loan was not sanctioned, therefore alleging deficiency in service against the bank the complaint filed before District Forum seeking directions to the opponent bank to sanction loan as per the NHB scheme and also to sanction subsidy. In addition, it was also sought a compensation of Rs.70,000/- towards mental and physical harassment, Rs.20,000/- for financial loss and Rs.10,000/- as cost of the complaint.
3. The opponent bank i.e. original opponent Nos. 1 & 2 appeared before the Forum and contested the claim of the complainant. It was contented that, the matter pertaining to the sanction of loan is the total discretion of the bank and District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain such complaint. It was also submitted that the respondent No.1/org. opponent no.1 which is main branch of the opponent bank was not concerned in anyway regarding the sanction of loan as stated by the complainant and therefore the complaint suffered the principle of mis- joinder of parties and the same is liable to be dismissed with cost. It was also specifically contended that, they have not paid any processing charges to the opponent bank and therefore they cannot be treated as consumer as per definition of term consumer as given in the Consumer Protection Act. It is also their contention that, the letter dated 12.04.2008 was issued to the complainants only for submission of their proposal to the NHB and no such assurance was given about the sanction of said loan. It was further submitted that, as per the letter of intent dated 25.07.2008 issued by the NHB Nashik the said letter was valid only for one year and it was made clear in the said letter that, the complainants can approach the bank/financial institution of their choice. Therefore, it was not binding on the opponent bank to sanction any loan. Secondly, that after one year the validity of the said letter was already lapsed. It was further submitted that the complainant No.1 namely Balasaheb Jadhav has individually made application dated 21.01.2010 for sanction of loan under the different scheme by name "Kisan Star Card Scheme" and not under the NHB 4 F.A. No. 248-12 scheme. The mortgage deed dated 21.02.2010 as executed by the complainant no.1 was as per the letter dated 21.01.2010 which has no relation with the scheme of NHB. That, the complainant No.1 was sanctioned the loan of Rs.4,00,000/- under the said scheme "Kisan Star Cards Scheme". Therefore the allegations that, complainants had mortgaged their land on 26.02.2010 has nothing to do with the scheme of NHB, as it was related with the different scheme of "Kisan Star Card Scheme". It was thus submitted that, there was no any deficiency in service on the part of opponent bank and the complaint be dismissed with cost.
4. The District Forum after considering the evidence on record and hearing the parties has partly allowed the complaint as mentioned above. It is held by the District Forum that, as per the letter dated 14.10.2008 issued by the opponent bank it was made clear that, the village Maholi which is residential place of the complainants was falling outside its jurisdiction and therefore the bank was unable to sanction the loan under the said scheme. However, it is further held that the opponent bank has sanctioned loan of Rs.4,00,000/- under the different scheme which is contrary to the stand taken by it by letter dated 14.10.2008. It is further held that, the complainants were unnecessary made to sustain the charges of mortgage deed and therefore holding that the claim of the complainant regarding giving directions to the opponent bank for sanction of loan is outside the jurisdiction of the District Forum and therefore only considering the deficiency in service the District Forum by its impugned judgment partly allowed the complaint and directed opponent bank to pay Rs.7500/- to the complainants towards mental harassment and cost of the complaint.
4. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order present appeal is filed in this Commission which came to be finally herd on 25.03.2015. Adv. Shri. S. R. Gawali was present for appellant, whereas Adv. Shri. R. S. Kurhe holding for Adv. Shri. S. R. Deshpnade was present for the respondent and submitted written notes of arguments. Adv. Shri. Rahul Joshi for the 5 F.A. No. 248-12 appellant has already submitted written notes of arguments. The proxy advocate for the appellant declined to argue the matter and therefore on the basis of written notes of arguments matter was reserved for judgment.
5. The learned counsel Shri. Rahul Joshi appearing for the appellant submitted that, the opponent bank had obtained from the complainant/appellants all required documents for sanction of loan of Rs.15,00,000/- under NHB Scheme and thereafter refused to sanction the loan along with subsidy. The complainants have produced all documentary evidence before District Forum. However the Forum did not appreciate the said evidence and awarded only the amount of compensation towards mental harassment without directing the sanction of loan of Rs.15,00,000/-. He therefore submitted to allow the appeal by modifying the impugned judgment and order.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel Shri. S. R. Deshpande made almost all the averments same as made by the opponent bank in its written version. He specifically submitted that the letter of intent issued by NHB is valid for only one year and therefore the complainants were required to take all necessary steps for the execution of registered mortgage deed and fulfilling the required pre-conditions for availment of loan. However the complainant submitted the loan proposal on 25.09.2009 i.e. after the lapse of the validity period of the said letter of intent. It is also the contention of the learned counsel Shri. Dehspande for the opponent bank that, the letter of intent is not at all a sanction of loan but it provides for overall structure of the total cost of the project and sanction of loan is left open for the bank or financial institute. That, the said project was also required to implement for the specific time i.e. within two years and after successful completion of said project and fulfill other terms and conditions complainant could get subsidy under the said scheme. However, since the loan proposal was not submitted within time and not taken further steps during the validity of the said intent of letter the opponent bank cannot be 6 F.A. No. 248-12 held responsible for deficiency in service. He therefore submitted that the appeal filed by the complainant be dismissed with cost.
7. We have carefully gone through the record placed before us which contains copies of the complaint, written version filed by both the branches of the opponent bank, letter of intent issued by NHB, letter dated 14.10.2008 issued by the opponent bank, other letter dated 21.01.2010, mortgaged deed dated 26.10.2010, impugned judgment and order, appeal memo, written notes of arguments and other documents etc. There are two important questions which arise for our consideration are-
i) Whether the complainants are the consumers of the opponent bank? and
ii) Whether the complainants have proved alleged deficiency in service against opponent bank?
8. As regards the first question as contended by the complainants that, the bank had issued letter dated 12.04.2009 for assurance of loan, but after the letter of intent as issued by NHB, Nashik, the opponent bank did not sanction the loan and therefore they were deprived from the said scheme and also subsidy which was available under the said scheme. However, as submitted by opponent bank by way of their written version the said letter dated 12.04.2008 was issued only for providing the required documents to be submitted along with the application for getting the benefits of the scheme of NHB and that there was no any assurance given for sanction of loan. The complainant/appellant has not produced the copy of letter dated 12.04.2008 and therefore its contents could not be verified. Secondly, the complainants had nowhere mentioned that they had paid certain present fees and other charges towards sanction of loan to the opponent bank. Therefore as there is no any consideration paid to the opponent bank and hence the complainants cannot be treated as consumer of the opponent bank as defined under Section-2 of Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, the complaint itself is not maintainable and the District Forum ought to have dismissed the same on the point of 7 F.A. No. 248-12 maintainability. However, it appears that the District Forum has utterly failed to consider this aspect although the opponent bank had pointed it out in their written version.
9. As regards the point No.2, even for the sake of argument if we consider the complainants as "consumer" of the opponent bank they have failed to prove deficiency in service against the opponent bank. The learned counsel Shri. Rahul Joshi for the appellant/complainant submitted that, they had completed all formalities for sanction of loan of Rs.15,00,000/- under the NHB Scheme. However, it appears that there is no such proposal submitted by the complainants for sanction of loan of Rs.15,00,000/- to the opponent bank. The application dated 20.05.2009 of the complainant for sanction of loan as received by the opponent bank, no details regarding amount of loan are given. It is further revealed from the letter of intent that, the total cost of the project as submitted by the complainant is Rs.15,00,000/-, out of which the promoter share is Rs.3,75,000/- and the amount of loan including subsidy etc is Rs.11,25,000/-. However, it appears that the complainant has misconceived this letter of intent and treated the same as sanction of loan Rs.15,00,000/-. In fact, the loan components of the total cost of the loan of any bank of the finance institute of their choice are clarified in the letter of intent. Therefore it was not binding on opponent bank to sanction any amount of loan. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel Shri. Joshi that the opponent bank failed to sanction the loan of Rs.15,00,000/- despite completing all formalities, cannot be sustained and not accepted.
10. It is further to be noted that in the letter of intent validity of one year i.e. upto 24.07.2009 is given. However, the complainants have submitted loan proposal on 25.09.2009 i.e. after the lapsed of validity period of one year. It is further revealed that, before submitting the loan proposal on 29.05.2009 the complainants had submitted application dated 09.09.2008 to the opponent bank for sanction of loan. However, the 8 F.A. No. 248-12 same was rejected by the opponent bank vide letter dated 14.08.2008 on the ground that, said village Mohali was not holding within its jurisdiction. The mortgage deed dated 26.02.2010 also does not pertain to the loan proposal under the NHB Scheme, but it pertains to the different scheme i.e. 'Kisan Smart Card Scheme'. Therefore we find no deficiency in service as committed by the opponent bank as has been alleged by the complainant/appellants.
11. In view of the aforesaid facts and observations we find no merit in the present appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed. Hence the following order.
ORDER
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. No order as to cost.
[HON'ABLE MR. S.M.SHEMBOLE] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'ABLE MR. K.B.GAWALI] MEMBER Kalyankar