Complainant Malwinder Singh had filed the present complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act against the opposite party and prayed that the opposite party be directed to pay Rs.10,00,000/- on account of loss occurred by him by spending on the construction on his land and Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.16,000/- on account of fees charged by the opposite party from him to prepare the valuation report and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses to him, in the interest of justice, equity and fair play.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that the business of valuation is being carried out by the opposite party at pathankot, as he is Panel Valuer, Estimator, Architect and Charted Engineer from whom valuation report was got prepared by the complainant for his land measuring 1 Kanal-17 Marlas as he is a owner of the land which is situated within the revenue estate of village Khadawar Tehsil & Distt. Pathankot, now within the Municipal Limits of Municipal Council Sujanpur Tehsil & Distt. Pathankot as such complainant availed the services of the opposite party and is the consumer of the opposite party. It is further pleaded that the above said land of the complainant is on the Pathankot- Jammu National Highway and having commercial value where he wants to construct a hotel and plaza having three floors i.e. Ground floor, first floor and second floor for the purpose of his livelihood for which he applied a loan of Rs.One Crore to the Central Bank of India branch Mamoon Cantt. Pathankot by way of equitable Mortgage of the said land measuring 1 Kanal- 17 Marlas and also completed all the documentary formalities for getting the loan from the bank and also prepared a legal security report dated 23.02.2017 from Sh.Bharat Bhushan Sharma Advocate, Distt. Courts, Pathankot who is on the panel of the above bank and also recommended the bank to give loan of Rs.One Crore to the complainant. It was further pleaded that complainant already got the commercial rate of the above said land which was falling within the Municipal limits of Municipal Council, Sujanpur from the Sub Registrar, Pathankot who vide its reports dated 31.05.2013 and 14.08.2014 showed the commercial rate of the commercial land as Rs.4,00,000/- per marla. Complainant also got a valuation report from the opposite party which was a legal formality of the bank for getting the loan and in that valuation report dated 13.04.2017, opposite party estimated the market value of the land of the complainant as Rs.1,50,000/- per marla and showed the total value of the land as Rs.55,50,000/- and as such opposite party estimated less value of the land whereas the market value of the land was Rs.4,00,000/- per marla in the year 2014-2014 according to the report of the Sub Registrar, Pathankot. It was also pleaded that on the basis of the valuation report dated 13.04.2017 of the opposite party, the bank refused to give the loan of Rs.One Crore to the complainant which is false, null void, illegal and not binding upon him. After applying for loan and sanctioning a site plan from the Municipal Council, Sujanpur, complainant started construction of his building by spending a huge amount of Rs.10,00,000/- from his own pocket with the hope that bank will definitely give loan to him but unfortunately they refused to give the loan on the basis of the valuation report of the opposite party. It was next pleaded that oral request was made by the complainant to the opposite party so many times to prepare a fresh valuation report of his land according to the Govt. Commercial Collector rate but the opposite party did not bother to his legal and genuine request which is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and as such complainant was harassed physically, mentally as well as financially by the opposite party without any fault on his part, hence this complaint.

3.       Upon notice opposite party appeared through their counsel and filed written reply by taking the preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form and complainant has concealed material facts from the Hon'ble Forum/Commission and as such is not entitled for the discretionary relief so claimed. On merits, it was admitted that valuation report was got prepared by the complainant from the opposite party for his property situated in the village Khadawar Tehsil & Distt. Pathankot, as complainant is owner of the land measuring 1 Kanal 17 Marla situated in the revenue estate of village Khadawar Tehsil Pathakot and is located on national highway. It was stated that valuation report was prepared by the opposite party in respect of the property of the complainant who further got prepared the estimate report regarding his plan to construct the multi-storey building over it besides renovation of the ground floor and wanted to avail the loan from the bank but it was not in the knowledge of the opposite party that complainant applied for loan of Rs.1 Crore. Opposite party is approved valuer of the various nationalized banks and is empanelled with them and is also on the list of panel of valuers for the office of Official Liquidator maintained by Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court and while submitting his reports in respect of the valuation of the property has to keep in mind various aspects regarding the property and also the value of the land as per collector rate. The property of the complainant is located in the revenue estate of village Khadawar Tehsil Pathankot and as per the approved collector rate the value of the property was affixed @s.46,750/- per marla. It is further stated that opposite party has nothing to do with the legal reports of the approved advocate of the respective banks who only opine regarding the property being un encumbered, marketable and un disputed in nature. Moreover, neither advocates nor the valuers can recommend for the sanction of the loan to the parties, but merely opine about the legal and technical aspects of the property intended to be mortgaged with the bank as security. It is also pleaded that property of the complainant does not fall at Sujanpur and is in the revenue estate of village Khadawar and the rate of the property falling in/at Sujanpur is totally different in respect of property situated at village Khadawar which is clear from the locality and surroundings of the concerned area where property is located. Though, the property of the complainant is located on the National Highway but there is not even a single shop of any other business activity being carried out in the adjoining location of the complainant and merely the property is situated at the highway does not forms the sole criteria of the property being categorized as commercial. Moreover, the National Highway Authority is in the process of expansion of the national highways and the possibility of part of the land of the complainant may be acquired by them which cannot be ruled out as they have acquired part of the lands falling on the roadside from the concerned owners for widening of the roads and opposite party while keeping all these aspects prepared the valuation report which was his duty as  professional person. It was next stated that the report of Sub Registrar Pathankot which was referred by the complainant in his complaint pertaining to the property which is located at Sujanpur and as per which Govt. rate is Rs.4,00,000/- but the land of the complainant is situated in the revenue estate of village Khadawar for which the Govt. approved land for commercial property is @ Rs.46,750/- per marla. It was stated that the granting of the loan to the prospective customer of the bank is in the sole discretion of the concerned bank and its official and the report of valuer as per norms but is not the sole criteria of granting loan to the customer of the bank but the complainant is falsely blaming the opposite party for refusal of the loan which all together is the discretion of the bank authorities. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

4.       Complainant had tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C1, copy of valuation report Ex.C2, copy of legal opinion Ex.C3, copies of applications of complainant  Ex.C4 and Ex.C6, copy of jamabandi Ex.C5, copy of letter of M.C.Sujanpur Ex.C7 and copy of approved site plan Ex.C8 and closed his evidence.  

5.       Sh.Rominder Kumar Prop. of opposite party had tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.OP-1 and closed his evidence.

6.       Written arguments filed by the parties.

7.       We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence produced on record for its contained statutory merit and have also judiciously considered and perused the arguments duly put forth by the learned counsels for the parties.

8.       Counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant got prepared a valuation report Ex.C2 from opposite party and as per report Ex.C2 the opposite party being valuer of the bank assessed a market value of the land of the complainant as Rs.1,50,000/- per marla instead of Rs.4,00,000/- per marla as per report of the Sub Registrar Pathankot. It is further argued that since the complainant got prepared report for availing loan of Rs.One Crore from Central Bank of India and since the opposite party wrongly assessed the value of the land as Rs.55,50,000/- as such loan was declined by the bank. Act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service.

9.       On the other hand counsel for the opposite party has argued that the opposite party assessed the value of the property on the basis of collector rate which was Rs.46,750/- per marla at that time and the opposite party is not aware that loan was declined by the bank on the basis of report.

10.     We have heard the counsels for the parties and gone through the record. It is an admitted fact that the complainant got prepared valuation report of his land vide report Ex.C2 as per which value of the land has been assessed as Rs.55,50,000/-. The plea of the complainant is that as per rate list issued by The Sub Registrar Pathankot, rate of the land was Rs.4,00,000/- per marla. However, we have gone through the report Ex.C4 as per which the collector rate of land falling in village Sujanpur is mentioned as Rs.4,00,000/- abutting road but the complainant has not obtained collector rate pertaining to village Khadawar, where the property of the complainant is situated. Moreover, this Commission is of the view that sanctioning and declining of the loan is prerogative of the bank and refusal to sanction the loan by the bank cannot be attributed to the assessment made by the opposite party vide report Ex.C2. Moreover, the complainant has not impleaded the bank as a party to complaint who could had disclosed the actual reason for declining the loan to the complainant.

11.     From the above discussion and evidence on record the complainant has completely failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Accordingly, the present complaint being without any merit is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.  

12.      The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.

13.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record room. 

                           (Lalit Mohan Dogra)

                                                                   President  

Announced:                                          (B.S.Matharu)

Aug. 01, 2023                                               Member

*YP*