This is a discussion on ICICI Home Finance C.Ltd.,C.Scheme,Jaipur. within the Judgments forums, part of the General Discussions category; Appeal No.89/05 1.Rajesh Jain,Pioneer,ICICI Bank,Subhash Bazar,Tonk 2.ICICI Home Finance C.Ltd.,C.Scheme,Jaipur. Appellants V. Ram Kishore r/o 1/36,Rajasthan Housing Board Colony,Tonk. Respondent ...
1.Rajesh Jain,Pioneer,ICICI Bank,Subhash Bazar,Tonk
2.ICICI Home Finance C.Ltd.,C.Scheme,Jaipur.
Ram Kishore r/o 1/36,Rajasthan Housing Board
Mr.Justice Sunil Kumar Garg-President
Shri Anand Bhandari,counsel for the appellants
None for the respondent
Date of Judgement: 16.7.09
BY THE STATE COMMISSION
This appeal has been filed by the appellants which were ops before the District Forum,Tonk against the order dated 30.11.04 passed by the District Forum,Tonk in complaint no.171/04,by which it was ordered that the appellants would sanction the loan demanded by the complainant respondent and if the same was not sanctioned,that would give a fresh cause of action to the complainant respondent and further the appellants would pay a sum of Rs.1000/- as amount of compensation and further Rs.1000/- as amount of cost of litigation.
It arises in the following circumstances:
That the complainant respondent had filed a complaint before the District Forum,Tonk on 6.9.04 interalia stating that he had applied before the appellant no.1 for getting house loan and had submitted papers and alongwith a cheque of Rs.625/- and that amount had been debited by the appellant no.1 from his account and loan was sanctioned. It was further stated in the complaint that the appellants though loan was sanctioned had not disbursed the mount of the loan and for the deficiency the present complaint was filed.
A reply was filed by the appellants on 17.11.04 before the District Forum,Tonk admitting the fact that the complainant respondent had applied for loan for construction and loan was sanctioned, but condition was added that the loan would be disbursed after getting the clearance from the concerned authorities and since valid title on papers was not found,the loan was not disbursed .Hence no deficiency in service on the part of the appellants and it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
The District Forum after hearing both the parties,through the impugned order dated 30.11.04 had allowed the complaint as stated above,interalia holding that since a sum of Rs.1250/- had been charged as processing fee and since the complainant respondent had submitted the necessary papers,therefore,in such a case it was the duty of the appellants to have sanction the loan.
Aggrieved from that order,this appeal has been filed by the appellants.
It may be stated here that the fact that the loan was
sanctioned though with some conditions is not in dispute as the appellants in their reply has admitted the fact that the loan was sanctioned,but on verification the papers were not found ok.
It may further be stated here that sanctioning a financial aid or continuing it is a discretionary matter of the financial institutions. If refusal to sanction financial aid is a bonafide exercise of such discretion that would not amount to deficiency in service. But in the present case the loan was sanctioned without proper verification and that was not a proper procedure adopted by the appellants bank as it causes harassment to the consumer. Bank has the full liberty to verify all the papers before sanction order is issued, but generally it is seen that the bank first issues sanction letter and verify later on.
Thus in such cases,no doubt the impugned order by which mandatory directions were given by the District Forum to disburse the amount of loan,could not be sustained and to that extent,the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside,but in that place the complainant respondent would be entitled to some sort of compensation amount for the reasons mentioned in the just above para and in our considered opinion,a sum of Rs.5000/- in lumpsum would be just and proper. Thus this appeal deserves to be partly allowed.
For reasons as stated above,this appeal filed by the appellants bank is partly allowed in the manner that that part of the impugned order dated 30.11.04 passed by the District Forum,Tonk by which the appellants were directed to issue the loan is quashed and set aside,but on the contrary,the appellants would pay a sum ofRs.5000/- in lumpsum to the complainant respondent within two months from today.
The appellants while prefering this appeal had deposited a
sum of Rs.1000/- with the District Forum,Tonk and the complainant respondent is free to withdraw that amount from the District Forum with interest that had accrued on that amount and the appellants would pay the rest amount of Rs.4000/- to the complainant respondent within two months from today.