BEFORE THE PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM
GOMATI DISTRICT ::: UDAIPUR
CASE NO. C.C. 12 OF 2014
Shri Prabin Roy-Complainant
Versus
The Branch Manager,
United Bank of India,
Belonia Branch - Opposite Party
PRESENT
Shri Asish Pal,
PRESIDENT
Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum,
Gomati District, Udaipur
And
Shri Sachidra Ch. Das
MEMBERS
COUNSEL
For the Complainant - Self.
For the Opposite Party - Mr. kajal Das,
Learned Advocate
Date of Delivery of Judgment - 19.01.2015
J U D G M E N T
This case under Section 12 of the Consumers Protection Act arises on the prayer filed by one Shri Prabir Roy of Matai, Belonia.
2. The case of the complaint, in short, is that Shri Prabir Roy being consumer of the United Bank of India complained about the deficiency of service by the afore-mentioned Bank. It is alleged that he applied for house loan amounting to Rs. 6,00,000/- against his job as an employee. On his application, the opposite party Branch Manager informed that Rs. 4,50,000/- loan is sanctioned and he is to produce his LICI policy and other Bonds. Complainant objected to it as he has already produced the certificate of the D.D.O. in respect of house loan. The Branch Manager opposite party insisted for production of all original bonds, LICI of which the petitioner refused to give. Then the Branch Manager canceled his house loan and deducted Rs. 5,589/- from his account as a fine. Because of such deficiency in service and act of the Branch Manager, the complainant suffered and prayed for compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
3. The opposite party Branch Manager appeared and filed written statement denying the claim of the complainant. It is stated that lone was sanctioned in the joint names of the complainant and his wife. So, she is to come to sign at the time of disbursement as per terms and complainant is to produce the Insurance Policy Certificate. But, the complainant has failed to comply the terms and conditions of the sanction of the loan. So, the Bank was not in a position to disburse the loan amount.
4. After filing of written statement, both parties appeared and produced their evidence. Accordingly, complainant appeared and examined.
On behalf of the opposite party, the Branch Manager appeared and examined.
Documents also produced by both the parties.
5. Now, on appreciation of the evidence given by both the parties, I shall determine the only points:
(1) Whether there was any deficiency in service and entitlement of the complainant to get the compensation?
6. On the basis of evidence, I shall, now, determine the above point.
FINDINGS & DECISIONS AND REASONS FOR DECISION
7. Complainant in his evidence stated that he applied for bank loan for an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/-. After few days, the Branch Manager told him that signature of his wife is necessary. Then Branch Manager told him to obtain Searching Report. Searching Report was obtained. It was informed that Rs. 4,50,000/- is sanctioned but the Branch Manager asked him for appearance of his wife. Branch Manager also asked to produce the original LICI fixed deposit bond, original khatian and registered deed and his wife is to come to sign in the Agreement papers. He stated that he applied for loan against his salary as a Government employee. So, he prayed for release if the loan but it was not given. He then prayed for clearance Certificate. The branch Manager realized Rs. 5,589/- from his Bank Account as a fine. But after depositing the fine money, the loan Clearance Certificate was not given. So, he barred to take loan from any other Bank.
On the other hand, the Branch Manager in his evidence denied the claim of the complainant. He produced original loan application form, sanction letter, etc. marked as Exhibit-A series.
The Branch Manager stated in his evidence that he acted as per direction of the main Branch, Agartala and their Head Office given instruction as application filed by both Prabir Roy and Munna Saha.
8. From the perusal of the application, it is found that application was filed by both Prabin Roy and Munna Saha but other particulars are given only for Prabir Roy. Date of birth, Sex, Status, Qualification, Occupation, all description given about Prabir Roy not Munna Saha. For Bank guarantee the Certificate of the D.D.O., Headmaster, Matai School also taken. As in this case both are applicants, then details of both the applicants had to be taken by Bank Authority but it was not taken.
9. It is admitted fact that after sanction of the loan of Rs. 4,50,000/- @ 10.25% interest, per annum, Bank Authority insisted for production of LICI Policy, Certificate, appearance of wife, security, Khatian, Sale Deed etc. But it is surprising that when the Bank Guarantee Service being Bank Guarantee is given then why those documents are again claimed. The sanction letter speaks about the giving of loan under United Housing Loan Scheme. All verifications should be made on property, Borrower’s residence & Business, IT returns/ Bank statement and security documents are to be executed before the disbursement of loan. All such disbursements were done. Searching Report was obtained in respect of property, Borrower’s residence & Business, IT returns/ Bank statement, etc. Therefore, loan disbursement should be commensurate with the progress of construction. Life Insurance Policy Certificate is to be produced where interest concession is allowed. In this instant case, interest concession is not allowed. Interest rate is more than 10%. The complainant did not apply for interest concession. In spite of that Branch Manager and the Head Office of the United Bank of India Branch insisted for Life Insurance Certificate and ultimately did not disburse the sanction amount for failure to produce the LICI policy, other documents and appearance of wife, the Branch Manager deducted amounting to Rs.5,589/- as a fine. He did not clarify under what authority he did it. He failed to disburse after raising different points but he did not clarify. He put the burden on the complainant and realized the amount. Even after realization, Clearance Certificate not given. It is found that Searching Fee was given by Prabir Roy. Bank Valuation Certificate was obtained and the D.D.O. Certificate in respect of Salary was also given. Ration Card, Voter Identity Card both are produced but in spite of that loan was not disbursed.
It may be under instruction of Head Office, United Bank of India, Agartala but why the Head Office did it, not explained. The Branch Manager is acting under the supervision of Head Office, so action of Head Office, United Bank of India is to be borne by the Branch Manager.
10. Therefore, on the above discussion, it is found that there was deficiency in service in this case. The realization of fine money from the complainant was illegal. Therefore, direction is given to refund the amount of Rs. 5,589/- immediately to the complainant with interest over it at the rate of 9% per annum. Apart from this, it is found that the complainant was harassed and mental agony because of non disbursement of sanctioned loan and for that harassment, the complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs. 10,000/- from the Bank.
Opposite party Branch Manager is directed to pay the amount of Rs. 10,000/- + Rs. 5,589/- = Rs.15,589/- (Rupees fifteen thousand five hundred eighty nine) with interest to the complainant immediately.
11. The case stands disposed of accordingly.
12. Supply copy of this judgment to the parties at free of cost.
A N N O U N C E D
(Sachindra Ch. Das) (Asish Pal)
Member President
Consumer Dispute Redressal Consumer Dispute Redressal
Forum, Gomati District Forum, Gomati District
Udaipur Udaipur
