(Delivered on 14/07/2017)

Per Hon’ble Mr. B.A. Shaikh, Hon’ble Member

1. This appeal is filed by original opposite party ( for short OP) Nos. 1 and 2 feeling aggrieved by the order dated 18/07/2013 passed by the District Forum, Wardha in consumer complaint bearing No. 51/2012 by which the said complaint has been partly allowed as filed by the respondent herein before the said District Forum.
2. The facts in brief giving rise to present appeal are as under.

The original complainant/respondent herein had obtained loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- from the original OP No. 2, its branch office of OP No. 1 and it was to be repaid by monthly installment of Rs. 1,862/-. It is alleged by the original complainant that he repaid that loan as per agreement to the OP No. 2 and he wanted further loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- from OP No. 1 and therefore he had moved an application  along with necessary documents for granting  the said loan. It was sanctioned by OP No.1. But  it was not paid.  He also alleged that then he moved another application for grant of loan of Rs. 5,00,000/-. It was also sanctioned by OP No. 1 but   it was not paid on second time also. Therefore original complainant could not make construction of his house and suffered loss. Moreover, it is  also alleged by the original complainant that original documents of title handed over by him to OP No. 2 were  not returned to him though the entire loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- has been repaid  by him and though request was made by him for that purpose from time to time orally and writing. Therefore alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP Nos. 1 and 2, he filed consumer complaint before the District Forum, Wardha and thereby claimed compensation of Rs. 3,64,500/- on various heads specified in Para No. 11 of the complaint and further claiming cost of litigation amounting to Rs. 5,000/-.

3. The OP Nos. 1 and 2 filed reply  before the Forum and resisted the complaint. They admitted that they granted loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the complainant which was to be repaid in monthly installment of Rs. 1,862/-. They also admitted that the said loan has been repaid by him. They also admitted that thereafter twice on the application of original complainant, they had sanctioned loan of Rs. 5,00,000/-. However it is their case in brief that the said loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- was not disbursed to the complainant as the necessary documents were not  furnished by him. They also submitted that they are ready to return the original documents to the complainant. Hence they requested that complaint may be dismissed.  
4. The Forum below after hearing both the parties and considering  evidence brought on record passed the impugned order and thereby accepted the aforesaid case of the original complainant and directed the OP Nos. 1 and 2/appellants to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- jointly and severally to the original complainant and also to pay him compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for physical and mental harassment and cost of Rs. 2,000/- within  30 days of receipt of copy of that order and in case of default, the said amount will be payable with interest at the rate of 10 percent per annum from the date of that order till its full payment to the original complainant. The Forum also directed the OP Nos. 1 and 2 to return the documents of the complainant to him.
5. Thus, feeling aggrieved, the original OP Nos. 1 and 2 have filed this appeal. We have heard learned advocate Mr. Dawada appearing for the appellant and learned advocate Smt. Deshmukh appearing for original complainant/respondent herein. We have also perused the entire record of the appeal.
6. The learned advocate of the appellant submitted that as necessary documents were not furnished  by the respondent to the appellant, the loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- was  not disbursed to him  and that aspect was not properly considered by the Forum. He has drawn our attention to the loan sanction letter and submitted that the conditions of the said sanction letter were not satisfied by the respondent herein and hence the Forum erred in saddling total compensation of Rs. 30,000/- and cost of Rs. 2,000/- on the appellants. He further submitted that the appellants were ready as per letter dated 20/09/2012 to return original documents to the respondent herein but he did not turn up to collect the same and hence no deficiency in service can be attributed to the appellants. He therefore requested that impugned order may be set aside.
7. On the other hand, the learned advocate of the respondent submitted that as all the necessary documents were already furnished to the appellant by the respondent, the loan was sanctioned twice by the appellants and therefore the stand taken  by the appellants as above  cannot be believed.  She also submitted that the original documents were not actually returned to the respondent by the appellant though demanded and hence the Forum passed the proper and correct order. She therefore requested that  appeal may be dismissed.
8. The letter of sanction dated 8/1/2010 produced on record by the appellants does not show that any particular kind of document was demanded by the appellants from the respondent herein. Moreover no separate letter was issued by the appellants to the respondent herein demanding any particular kind of the document from him required for disbursement of sanctioned loan of Rs. 5,00,000/-. We find that as all the necessary documents were already furnished  by the respondent to the appellants., the loan was sanctioned twice by the appellants. The  ‘No Objection Certificate’ obtained from the concerned Gram Panchayat, Pimpari Meghe was also furnished by the respondent to the appellant  of  which copy is filed on record. Therefore we hold that as the appellant did not disburse loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- without cogent reason to the respondent despite of sanctioning the same,  it constitutes deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.
9. Moreover, we also find that the letter dated 20/09/2012 filed on record shows that the appellant had issued the same to the respondent herein after filing of the complaint that is after 2/5/2012. Therefore not returning of the documents after full payment of the loan of Rs. 1,50,000/-, constitutes deficiency in service on the part of the appellants.
10. Thus, the Forum has rightly assessed compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for causing loss to the respondent herein by not disbursing loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- to him by the appellants. Moreover, the Forum rightly assessed compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for physical and mental harassment and litigation cost of Rs. 2,000/- We find no merits in this appeal and thus it deserves to be dismissed.

ORDER

1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. No order as to cost in appeal.
3. Copy of the order be furnished to both the parties, free of cost.  

ph