Haryana

StateCommission

A/419/2018

UNION BANK OF INDIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANVEER SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

SANDESH ARORA

03 Aug 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

 

  Date of Instituion:09.04.2018

                Date of final hearing:03.08.2022

                                                Date of pronouncement: 19.09.2022

 

                                      APPEAL No.419 of 2018

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

1. Union Bank of India Branch Sector-18, Jagadhri through its Branch Manager, Distt. Yamuna Nagar (Haryana).
2. Regional Head Union Bank of India, Asa Ram Market, Model Town, Karnal(Haryana).

Through:Sh.Sandesh Arora, Advocate appearing for the appellants.

…..Appellants

VERSUS

Manveer Singh S/o Sh.Milap Singh R/o village Hundewala Farm, Ratauli road, Jagadhri, Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar (Haryana).

Through: Sh.Sikander Bakshi, Advocate appearing for the respondent.

…..Respondent

CORAM:    S.P.Sood, Judicial Member

                   Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

 

 

Present:-    Mr. Sandesh Arora, Advocate for the appellants.

                   Mr.Sikander Bakshi, Advocate for the respondent.

 

O R D E R

PER: S.P.SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

JUDGMENT

 

1.      The facts of the case  as per the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,  Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri (Now in short “District Commission”) record are:

          The complainant was having an account in Union bank of India (opposite party No.1).  The complainant was studying in UK and having student visa and in the month of November 2014 when his visa was about to expire, he had applied for extension of visa in UK.  The complainant was required to demonstrate the correct maintenance (funds)k loan provided by the National Government, the State or Regional Government or a Government sponsored student loan.  To complete the formalities of UK Visa, the complainant applied for education loan with the opposite party No.1  in India. As per the instruction of Mohan Lal Manager, he deposited a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- in the shape of FDR with the OP No.1.  On 19.11.2014, the education loan of the complainant was sanctioned by OP No.1.  However immigration department of UK rejected the application of complainant for extension of visa on the ground that loan sanctioned by the bank was not under the specific head of educational loan rather the same was classified as secured loan against fixed deposit.  He tried to contact OP No.1 to request him to rectify the mistake but later did not attend the call. The father of the complainant visited the office of OP No.1, but, the bank officials refused to rectify the nature of the loan. The complainant suffered mental agony, harassment and financial loss due to the negligence of the OP No.1 for which the complainant was entitled for compensation and prayed for directing the OPs to rectify the mistake and to correct the nature of loan i.e. Student Educational Loan and to issue fresh  sanctioned letter under the head of educational loan and further to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and Rs.20,000/- as cost of proceedings.

2.      Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written statement.  It was alleged that the loan account has already been closed on 24.02.2015. The complainant approached it for sanctioning loan of  Rs.6,25,000/- to meet out some urgent financial needs against the FDR vide application dated 19.11.2014 and after completing the formalities, the OP No.1 immediately sanctioned the loan against FD for the purpose of education vide loan sanction letter under Ref:Edu/703/138, dated 19.11.2014. The visa of the complainant has not been rejected due to any fault of the then Manager of OP No.1. Thus there was no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  Preliminary objections about concealment of material facts, complaint is false and frivolous, jurisdiction, maintainability of complaint etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint as prayed for.

3.      The District Commission after considering entire material available on record passed the order dated 12.03.2018, whereby it held as under:-

“As a sequel of above we partly allow the complaint of the complainant by directing the OPs to pay Rs.50783.23 ps to the complainant on account of expenses incurred by him while travelling from Birmingham to Delhi and Delhi to Birmingham and further to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.3000/- as cost of proceedings. Order be complied within 45 days from the preparation of this order failing which the OPs shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint till its realization. Copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.”

4.      Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Commission, the appellant has preferred the present appeal contending that  complainant was in hurry and he was in need of loan to show the funds and respondent neither disclosed the category of loan to the appellant bank nor provided any documents regarding the education loan or any other property documents.  It was admitted that the respondent deposited a sum of Rs.Seven lacs in shape of FDR with the bank and the appellant bank had sanctioned the loan of Rs.6,25,000/- against the FDR as a secured loan. The complainant-respondent moved an application dated 19.11.2014 Ex.R-11which clearly shows that loan was a secured loan/overdraft and in the said application mentioned that “enclose  duly discharge by me to meet out some urgent financial needs, I required sum of Rs.6,25,000/- I request you to grant a loan of Rs.6,25,000/- against following FDR/DRC/CUM by transferring the same to my SB/Current Account or pay in cash”. The bank has sanctioned the loan as per the rules. The learned district Commission wrongly assessed the loan sanction letter which was issued on the same day as desired by the complainant.  It was further alleged that complainant-respondent never disclosed that he wants the loan in the shape of  proper education scheme. Learned District Commission wrongly assessed the sanction letter regarding purpose of loan against FDR. The  impugned order passed by the District Commission is apparently vague, non speaking so  unsustainable in the eyes of law and appeal deserves to be allowed and impugned order be set aside.

5.      The respondent, on the other hand, denied all the allegations of the appellant and submitted that he had applied for extension of visa in UK and for that purpose the complainant was required to demonstrate the correct maintenance (funds) loan. To complete the formalities of UK, Visas and immigration Department, he was in dire need of student loan.  As per the advise of Mohan Lal, Manager of OP No.1 Bank, the complainant visited India on 18.11.2014 and applied for education loan and completed the paperwork of the bank.  As per instruction of Mohan Lal, Manager, he deposited Rs.7,00,000/-  in the shape of FDR with OP No.1.  The education loan was sanctioned vide letter Ref. No.Edu/703/138 dated 19.11.2014. When the immigration department of UK checked the nature of loan, they found that the loan was not in the category of educational loan and rejected the application of the complainant.   All this happened due to negligence of OP No.1 Branch Manager. Therefore if the bank officials were careful in allowing this loan then complainant would not have required to visit India and saved the expenditure

6.      We have perused the appeal, reply of the respondent and impugned order.

7.      The question of consideration before us is:

ISSUES/POINTS FOR DETERMINATION

“(i)     Whether the  complainant was entitled to obtain fresh sanctioned letter under the head of educational loan from the OP No.1?

(ii)      Whether the complainant-respondent is entitled to recover Rs.10,00,000/- on account of mental agony, physical harassment and financial looses?

(iii)     Whether the complainant is entitled to Rs.20,000/- as cost of legal proceedings?

8.      No case law has been relied upon by the parties.

9.      REASONS AND OBSERVATIONS

 

We have gone through the complaint, written statement and documents submitted by the parties and considered the submissions of  the parties.  My issue wise findings are as under:-

ISSUE NO.(i)

 

“(i)     Whether the  complainant was entitled to obtain fresh sanctioned letter under the head of educational loan from the OP No.1?

  10. Conclusion on the aforesaid issue

          It was incumbent upon complainant to prove that the task required to be accomplished by OP, could have easily been completed even without his physically visiting India   specifically for this purpose had the officials of OP were little more careful in their working. To discharge this onus, we need to look into background. Admittedly complainant has been pursuing his education in UK and was holding student visa. However, of late his visa was about to expire and he intended to raise a loan from OP, banker to comply with certain conditions of UK embassy to show his financial back up. Therefore complainant presented a fixed deposit receipt  of rupees seven lacs against which OP sanctioned a loan of Rs.6,25,000/- as secured loan against FD for  the purpose of education. But observation did not find approval from the embassy people and in the meantime his visa expired and he had to come back to India and then go back.

The sanction letter of education loan is important to decide this issue. Perusal of the Ex.C-1 loan sanction letter dated 19.11.2014 shows that the nature of loan was “Secured loan against FD for the purpose of Education”. It means that the loan sanctioned  by the OP No.1-bank was for the purpose of education loan and not for any other purpose.  Ex. C-3 was letter of the  Union bank specifically denying that the complainant did not apply for education loan, which is in clear violation of the terms and conditions of the bank norm.    Although OP bank official tried to introduce the objective intended to be achieved by the complainant by writing the said financial liability was allowed for education purpose but at the same time they also happened to add up that the said facility was allowed against fixed deposit.  Perhaps embassy people wanted this financial assistance in favour of complainant being named in some other manner recognized under their own rules and specifications.  Therefore purpose of education loan stood defeated. The learned District Forum rightly allowed the  expenses incurred by the complainant by way of air fare from Delhi to Birmingham  and back.  The issue no.1 is decided in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties. Thus, under issue No.1 is disposed of accordingly.

11.    The second question of consideration before us is:-

(ii)      Whether the complainant-respondent is entitled to recover Rs.10,00,000/- on account of mental agony, physical harassment and financial looses?

(iii)     Whether the complainant is entitled to Rs.20,000/- as cost of legal proceedings?

 

12.    No case law has been relied upon by the parties.

13.    Reasons/Observations to the above mentioned issue

           Issue No.ii and iii are taken up together as they are similar in nature. Under issue No.ii, the complainant claimed Rs.10,00,000/- on account of mental agony, physical harassment and financial looses and under issue No.iii, the complainant claimed Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses. 

14.    Conclusion on the aforesaid issue

The complainant claimed Rs.10,00,000/-, which was exaggerated, however for want of any detail how and where this huge amount was incurred by complainant, the learned District Commission rightly allowed Rs.5000/- which does not call for interference. Thus, issue No.ii was rightly allowed by the learned District Commission. 

Under issue No.ii, the complainant claimed Rs.20,000/-, which was exaggerated, however, the learned District Commission rightly allowed Rs.3000/- on account of cost of proceedings.

15.    Final Conclusion:-

          All the issues are in favour of the complainant-respondent and against the opposite parties-appellants. Hence, the contentions raised on behalf of the present appellants stands rejected as rendered no assistance and found to be untenable and the order passed by the learned District Commission does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and is well reasoned and accordingly stands maintained for all intents and purposes.  Hence, appeal  stands dismissed on merits.

16.    Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.

17.    A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

18.    File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this order.

 

                                                                   (S.P.Sood)

                                                                   Judicial member

 

 

 

                                                                                    (S.C.Kaushik)

                                                                     Member

 

Pronounced On:  19.09.2022                                                                  

 

S.K.(Pvt. Secy)