DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE
PRESENT : Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT
Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) : MEMBER
Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER
Wednesday the 18th day of January, 2023
C.C. 327/2022
Complainants
- Shabina. K,
Kunnummal Kandy House,
Ulliyeri P.O,
Koyilandy Via,
Kozhikode – 673323.
- Satheesan. K. K,
Kunnummal Kany House,
Ulliyeri P.O,
Koyilandy Via,
Kozhikode – 673323.
Opposite Party
Branch Manager,
Indian Bank,
Koyilandy Branch,
Koyilandy P.O,
Kozhikode – 673306.
ORDER
By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN – PRESIDENT.
This is a complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:
The second complainant is the husband of the first complainant. In March 2022, the second complainant made an application for take over of his housing loan availed from Kerala Bank, Ulliyeri branch to the Indian Bank, Koyilandy branch. After verifying the eligibility, the Indian Bank (the opposite party) directed to produce necessary documents and accordingly all the documents were produced in time. The first complainant is a Government servant and it was agreed to recover the loan instalments from her salary. Legal scrutiny was made by the lawyer. Plan and estimate for the proposed construction in the first floor were also prepared and submitted to the bank. They have been contacting the bank authorities for the last nearly 7 months. The bank Manager and Engineer visited the site. But on 28/10/2022 the complainants received a communication from the opposite party bank to the effect that the proposal for take over cannot be accepted. The complainants had spent more than Rs. 20,000/- for meeting various expenses for availing the loan. Moreover, they are not in a position to repay the loans availed from other sources. Hence the complaint claiming compensation of Rs. 25,000/- from the opposite party for the monetary loss and mental agony.
3. Upon receipt of notice, the opposite party failed to appear before this Commission and hence set ex-parte.
4. The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;
(1). Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party bank?
(2). Reliefs and costs.
5. PW1 was examined and Exts A1 to A6 were marked.
6. Heard the complainants.
7. Point No. 1 : The complainants have approached this Commission with a grievance that the opposite party bank did not accept the proposal for taking over the loan and thereby there was deficiency of service which has resulted in monetary loss as well as mental agony to them, for which, they have claimed compensation of Rs. 25,000/-.
8. In order to substantiate their case, the first complainant got herself examined as PW1, who has filed affidavit in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim. Ext A1 is the letter dated 24/08/2022 issued by the opposite party to the Kerala Bank demanding documents, Ext A2 is the letter issued by the Kerala Bank to the opposite party, Ext A3 is the copy of the building plan, estimate and permit, Ext A4 is the legal scrutiny report, Ext A5 is the receipt dated 13/05/2022 for having paid legal charges and expenses in respect of legal scrutiny report to the Advocate and Ext A6 is the letter dated 28/10/2022 issued by the opposite party to the complainants informing their inability to accept the proposal for take over.
9. The complainants allege deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party bank on the ground that it did not accept the proposal for take over of the loan from another bank. The evidence indicates that necessary documents were furnished by the complainants for that purpose to the bank. The bank after considering all the aspects of the matter found that the second complainant’s CIBIL report reflected one settled overdraft loan with written off amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- and hence the proposal for take over and additional construction was not accepted as per the bank norms and this has been communicated to the complainants as per Ext A6.
10. In this context, it may be noted that the decision of the bank not to take over the loan and grant loan for additional construction would not constitute deficiency of service. Such matters are within the exclusive discretion of the bank depending on the norms. The complainants have no vested right of being granted the take over and the loan applied for. It is the discretion of the bank to decide whether the take over should be allowed or loan sanctioned considering all the aspects including the norms and viability. It is for the bank to satisfy itself whether the applicant for the financial assistance is credit worthy and the project to be financed is technically feasible and economically viable. In the instant case, the CIBIL report of the 2nd complainant was not satisfactory and hence the bank decided not to accept the proposal for take over and additional construction. Undisputedly, an unfavourable CIBIL report is a valid ground for denying loans as per bank norms. That being the position, no deficiency of service can be attributed against the bank.
11. In a consumer case, the onus to prove deficiency of service is on the complainant. Without proof of deficiency, the opposite party cannot be held liable. It is true that the opposite party in this complaint chose to remain absent and did not participate in the proceedings. But that does not automatically means that the complainants are entitled to the relief sought for. It is for the complainants herein to prove their case of deficiency of service. As there is no proof of deficiency, the complaint must fail.
12. Point No.2: In view of the finding on the above point, the complainants are not eligible to claim and get any relief.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 18th day of January, 2023.
Date of Filing: 25/11/2022.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/- MEMBER
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant :
Ext. A1 – Letter dated 24/08/2022.
Ext. A2 – Letter issued by the Kerala bank to the opposite party.
Ext. A3 – Copy of the building plan, estimate and permit.
Ext. A4 – Legal scrutiny report.
Ext. A5 – Receipt dated 13/05/2022.
Ext. A6 – Letter dated 28/10/2022.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party
Nil.
Witnesses for the Complainant
PW1 – Shabina. K (Complainant).
Witnesses for the opposite parties
Nil.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
Forwarded/By Order
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
