State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
. Sadagoparamanujam, The Senior ... vs Tha.Ko.Venkatachalam, ... on 17 May, 2011
THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI
THE TAMILNADU STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI
(BENCH
II)
Present: Thiru.A.K.Annamalai, M.A.,
M.L., M.Phil., Presiding Member
Judicial
Tmt.Vasugi
Ramanan, M.A., B.L., Member
F.A.No.30/2008
[Against order in COP.No.74/2002
on the file of the DCDRF, Dharmapurai at Krishnagiri]
TUESDAY,
THE 17th DAY OF MAY 2011.
1.
Sadagoparamanujam,
The Senior Manager,
Indian Overseas Bank,
K Theatre Salai,
Krishnagiri.
2. The Divisional
Manager,
Indian Overseas Bank,
Salem.
.. Appellants/Opposite
parties.
Vs.
1.
Tha.Ko.Venkatachalam,
S/o.Govindasamy,
D.No.32B, 2nd Cross Street,
Jakkappan Nagar,
Krishnagiri.
2. V.Kamesh,
S/o.Tha.Ko.Venkatachalam,
D.No.32 B, 2nd Cross Street,
Jakkappan Nagar,
Krishnagiri. .. Respondents/Complainants.
The Appellants as complainants
filed a complaint before the District Forum, Dharmapuri, alleging deficiency
against the opposite parties to pay Rs.2,00,000/- for breach of trust, mental
agony etc and to pay Rs.6,500/- towards expenses. The District Forum, allowed the complaint
against the opposite parties. Against
the said order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite parties, praying to set
aside the order of the District Forum, Dharmapurai, dated 17.08.07 in
COP.No.74/2002.
This appeal coming before us for
hearing finally on 10.05.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on Complainants
side and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the
District Forum, this Commission made the following order :-
Counsel
for the Appellants/Opposite parties : Mr.R.Sucharitha, Advocate.
Counsel
for the Respondents/Complainants
: Mr.T.Arulraj, ( Absent)
ORDER
A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING MEMBER JUDICIAL
1. Opposite parties are the appellants.
2. The complainants have filed a complaint against the opposite parties for the relief of compensation for Rs.2,00,000/- for deficiency of service and for mental agony and Rs.6,500/- for the expenses meet out to avail the loan and for costs.
3. The brief details of the complaint are as follows :- The 1st complainant applied for education loan for the 2nd complainant his son for Rs.4,72,000/- for three years on 8.1.2000 from the opposite parties and submitted necessary documents including the land documents for the purpose of collateral security and after receiving the loan application for the proposed loan for the year 2001 and on assuring the loan by the opposite parties the land was inspected on 27.4.02 and subsequently as the loan was not sanctioned due to the alleged letter sent by one Sathyamoorthy stating that the land shown by the complainant as collateral security was in his possession after his purchase and he has asked not to sanction the loan. Because of the rejection of loan the 1st complainant had to make alternative arrangements and thereby the complainants have suffered mental agony and ordeal and expenses for getting the documents and thereby the complaint was filed for the reliefs as above.
4. Opposite parties have denied the allegation of complainant in their written version by stating that only not on the letter received from one Sathyamoorthy for objecting the sanction of loan and also based on other grounds the loan was rejected. The land was inspected on 27.5.02 and not on 27.4.2002 and the discretion is being vested with the bank the prospective borrower cannot seek the assistance of the Court or Forum. No mental agony caused. If the loan is sanctioned without considering the letter send by Sathyamoorthy the 1st opposite party would have landed in trouble. There is no deficiency of service and the complaint to be dismissed.
5. On the basis of both sides materials placed before the District Forum and after an enquiry it allowed the complaint by directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and no award is passed for the amounts spent for the procuring of documents.
6. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the appellants have come forward with this appeal and in the grounds of appeal among other things it is stated that the District Forum wrongly allowed the complaint. For the purpose of sanctioning of loan the bank has various rules and regulations and it is not correct that the loan was refused on the basis of single letter alone and thereby the District Forum order to be set aside.
7. While considering both sides arguments, averments and contentions it is not in dispute that the complainants have approached the opposite parties for the sanction of educational loan to the 2nd complainant for Rs.4,72,000/- for 3 years at the rate of Rs.1,20,000/- each and submitted an application for the same as per Exhibit A1 and also it was not in dispute that the loan was not sanctioned on the ground of objection letter received by the opposite parties in Exhibit B1 even though the opposite parties stated that the loan was refused on other grounds also. As per Exhibit B1 letter one Sathyamoorthy who is said to be the brother of the 1st complainant has stated that he had purchased the land in S.Nos.524/2B, 524/2A and 524/2C from the 1st complainant and the lands are in his possession and also civil dispute is pending and further he has requested not to grant any loan to the complainant. But the complainants have submitted the documents relating to the lands concerned in Survey No.521/1, 521/3 and encumbrance certificate for the same for the period from 1987 to 2001 August as per Exhibit A2 series. As per Exhibit B1 the property was purchased on 15.2.1999. But the Encumbrance Certificate filed by the complainant for the lands claimed finds only Nil report as Encumbrance for the period up to August 2001 relates to survey Nos.521/2, 521/3 which are not at all related to the alleged land purchased by the Sathyamoorthy and it is clearly seen that in order to avoid sanction of loan to the complainant that letter was sent to the bank. The 1st opposite party being a Senior Manager without going in to the entire details of the land and even without considering any legal expert or panel lawyers with the bank in this matter, rejected the loan seems to be non other than for any other reason except for the objection made in the letter Exhibit B1 and thereby it is clearly gross negligence and deficiency on the part of the 1st opposite party who is acted as manager under the control of 2nd opposite party and failed to exercise his discretion in a proper manner which caused hardship mental agony to the complainants no doubt about it and thereby the complainants are entitled for deserving compensation.
8. While considering the District Forums order, after analyzing both sides materials it came to the proper conclusion and thereby allowed the complaint by awarding a compensation of Rs.25,000/- and no award for procuring of documents which are formal for submitting the loan application and in those circumstances as far as compensation is concerned it seems some what higher in nature which could be justified by reducing the same in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and thereby we feel that there is no need for interference in the order of the District Forum except to the modification of compensation alone and accordingly the compensation of awarded is reduced to Rs.10,000/- from Rs.25,000/- and in other respects the District Forum order is to be confirmed.
9. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part by modifying the order of the District Forum, Dharmapurai in COP.No.74/2002 dated 17.08.07, the compensation awarded is reduced to Rs.10,000/- from Rs.25,000/- and in other respects the District Forum order is confirmed. There will be no order as to cost in this appeal.
VASUGI RAMANAN A.K.ANNAMALAI, MEMBER PRESIDING MEMBER JUDICIAL INDEX : YES / NO sg/B-II/aka// IOB