State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
R.Jayaraman,Gingee. & Another vs The Managing Director,Tamilnad ... on 29 July, 2022
1
IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH OF THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADURAI.
Present: THIRU.N. RAJASEKAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
THIRU.S.KARUPPIAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
C.C.No.35/2015
Date of complaint filed : 20.11.2013
Date of orders pronounced : 29.07.2022
1. Mr.R.Jayaraman,
S/o V.Rajagopal,
No.220/16, Tindivanam Road,
Gingee - 604 202. 1st Complainant
2. J.Rajkumar,
S/o R.Jayaraman,
No.10/6, Valmiki Street,
Srinivasa Nagar,
Chennai - 600 063. 2nd Complainant
-Vs-
1. The Managing Director,
Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited,
57, V.E.Road, Tuticorin - 628 002. 1st Opposite Party
2. The Branch Manager,
Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Limited,
Kalakkad Branch,
Nanguneri Taluk,
Tirunelveli District. 2nd Opposite Party
3. The Divisional Manager,
Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Limited,
Divisional Office, Opp.To BSNL,
Vannarapet, Tirunelveli. 3rd Opposite Party
Counsel for Complainants : M/s. R.Karunagaran, Advocate.
Counsel for Opposite Parties-1to3 : Mr.V.Karthikeyan, Advocate.
This complaint coming before me for final hearing on 12.07.2022 and upon
perusing the material records this Commission made the following:-
2
ORDER
THIRU.S.KARUPPIAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER.
1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 17 (1) (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying this Commission to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation and to pay Rs.10,00,000/- towards mental agony and to pay Rs.5,00,000/- for transportation charges.
2. The complainant case :
The 1st complainant is the father and the 2nd complainant is the son. Both are doing business and wealthy believe of their locality. They wish to construct a housing loan and approached the opposite parties bank for a housing loan. Since, the first complainant is become old. The second complainant stood as guarantor. Initially the bank agreed to sanction Rs.23,00,000/- for which the complainant paid Rs.13,000/- towards processing fees and Rs.3200/- for engineer valuation charges and Rs.1500/- towards advocate's legal opinion. The complainant did not commit any financial irregularities and the second complainant availed three personal loans which were about to be settled. The I.C.I.C.I. bank employee without knowledge of the complainant took a policy and the complainant gave complaint against him. But, without appreciating the above facts, the bank refused to grant loan stating that, CIBIL Score is very low. It causes great hardship and mental agony. So, on 02.07.2013 a lawyer notice was sent for which the bank replied on 26.07.2013.
Hence, the complaint is filed to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation and to pay Rs.10,00,000/- towards mental agony and to pay Rs.5,00,000/- for transportation charges.
3
3. The Written version:
The opposite parties filed their written version stating that, it is true that initially the bank willing to sanction the loan amount as expected by the complainants. But, the complainants were asked to set right the encumbrance shown in the Cibil Statement and the complainants were further asked to produce No Due Certificate as such there is no deficiency of service. Further, the service charge collected from the complainant were refunded on 16.02.2015 after deducting the service tax Rs.1500/-. Hence, they prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. Now the point for considerations are:
(1) Whether deficiency of service committed by the opposite parties? (2) Whether the complaint is to be allowed or not?
5. Point: It is an admitted fact that the complainants initially applied for loan and they were asked to pay processing fee Rs.13,000/- and Rs.3200/- for engineer valuation and Rs.1500/- for advocate's legal opinion. However, the loan was not sanctioned since, there is some Encumbrances Cibil Statement. It is rudiment principles of banking loans that if the Cibil Score is not satisfactory the loan will not be granted to any person. The basic credential to avail bank loan is the Cibil Statement. It is an admitted by the complainant himself that he is having some financial problem with three banks and about to settle the same.
6. He is having yet another issue with I.C.I.C.I. bank. In the reply notice which is marked as Ex.A6 it has been mentioned by the bank that the complainants were asked to get No Due Certificate from ABN AMRO Bank, City Bank and I.C.I.C.I. Bank. Inspite of such requests the complainant failed to produce No Due Certificate. The advocate fees towards legal opinion, and surveyor valuation charges were already 4 utilized by the bank towards the specific purposes. The remaining amount of Rs.13,000/- alone was with the bank which was paid towards processing fee that amount was also specifically refunded to the complainants' account after deducting service tax. So, failure to sanction loan striking Cibil Statement is not deficiency of service.
7. In this respect the learned counsel for the opposite parties relied on some citations Judgement. And we feel those are not related to our case, and those cases are deal with change in rate of interest. However, we wish to state that the Judgement of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, CDJ 2015 (Cons.) Case No.017, G.Jayadevappa & Others -Vs- The Manager Syndicate Bank Durgigudi Branch. In this case, the complaint was filed against the bank. Since, they asked some charges towards valuation and other thing for granting loan. Without paying the amount the complaint was filed alleging deficiency of service. The National Commission confirmed the finding of the State Commission that granting loan is subject to the rules and regulations of the bank and failure to grant loan will not amounts to deficiency of service.
8. In this case also, all loan sanctioned by the bank is subject to the conditions and obligations to be fulfilled by the complainant. Failure on his part to clear or fulfill the stipulations and refusal of loan by the bank. On the above finding will not grant amount to deficiency of service. Moreover, in this case processing fee is also refunded as such we did not any deficiency of service and failure to sanction loan will not defined the complainants. Hence, we reject the complaint and answered accordingly.
5
9. In the result,
1. The complaint is dismissed.
2. No cost.
Sd/-xxxxxxx Sd/-xxxxxxx
S.KARUPPIAH, N. RAJASEKAR,
JUDICIAL MEMBER. PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
ANNEXURE
List of documents filed on the side of the complainant Ex.A1 03.06.2009 Complainants letter to I.C.I.C.I.Bank. Ex.A2 03.06.2009 Payment Receipt issued by I.C.I.C.I.Bank. Ex.A3 20.02.2013 Opposite Party Bank Counsel Legal Opinion and Valuation Report.
Ex.A4 14.03.2013 Processing charges collected by the opposite party. Ex.A5 02.07.2013 Legal Notice issued by the complainant to opposite party. Ex.A6 26.07.2013 Reply Notice issued by the opposite party.
List of documents filed on the side of opposite parties Ex.B1 09.03.2013 CIBIL Consumer Credit Information Report. Ex.B2 26.07.2013 Reply Notice with Postal Receipt and A/D Card.
Dictated to the Steno-typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 29th day of July 2022.
Sd/-xxxxxxx Sd/-xxxxxxx
S.KARUPPIAH, N. RAJASEKAR,
JUDICIAL MEMBER. PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
6