HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N.P. SINGH ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. S.K. NAIK ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :
NEMO
For the Respondent :
NEMO
Dated : 02 Feb 2010
ORDER
Respondent, a Senior Librarian of O/o Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation (HSIDC), Panchkula along-with other 79 employees of the said Organisation who were allotted shares in HSIDC, moved petitioner Corporation Bank, a body corporate under the Banking Companies Act, for sanction of loan. As per respondent, she was sanctioned loan of Rs. 9.80 lakhs along-with fixed interest payable @ 8.5%, repayable in 15 yearly installments after a moratorium period of 36 months subject to pari passu charge. All loanees also opened their accounts with bank, on a minimum deposit of Rs. 500/-. She, accordingly, allegedly approached Bank for release of 3.25 lakhs, loan installment which did not materialize due to sanctioned loan having been withdrawn by Bank after lapse of three months of its validity period. Respondent eventually moved State Bank of India and was sanctioned loan on floating rate of interest @ 9.25% p.a. along-with process fee. Alleging loss of Rs. 1,16,125/- having suffered due to Corporation Bank not releasing loan installment and having not posted her with due information, respondent took recourse to consumer grievance redressal agency, filing a complaint with District Forum. Complaint was resisted by petitioner Bank stating inter alia, that since despite long waiting and due information having been given by nodal officer of HSIDC, Panchkula, no requisite formalities were ever performed by respondent, petitioner bank was well within its power in terms of clauses set out in the sanction order to revoke sanction of loan made to respondent. District Forum, however, having over-ruled contentions raised on behalf of petitioner Bank, while accepting complaint, granted substantial relief. Appeal too, preferred by petitioner Bank did not find favour with State Commission which, while upholding finding of District Forum, dismissed appeal. It is how that Corporation Bank is in revision before us. First, we wish to take notice contentions raised on behalf of respondent. Learned counsel with his vehemence, who seeks to impress us, submits that since no nodal officer was ever appointed, and loan was made available to respondent in his/her individual capacity, by petitioner bank, it was all the more obligatory for Bank to make individual communication either about sanction of loan or its terms and conditions, taking recourse to which, loan facility had been eventually withdrawn by Bank. Despite our insistence to make us available, copy of application form with which Corporation Bank was moved by respondent in her individual capacity for sanction of loan or any communication having been made by her in individual capacity with Bank in this chain of transaction, no document was put on record by respondent. The focal point highlighted by learned counsel for respondent was confined to the fact that for deficiency on part of bank, respondent had to secure loan from State Bank of India at higher rate of interest which made her to suffer financial loss of Rs.1,16,125/-. Contra argument canvassed on behalf of petitioner Bank had been that all communication in the chain of transaction had been made by petitioner Bank to nodal officer appointed in the matter. Even in complaint, no complain either about she being not aware of sanction of loan or the terms and conditions attached to sanction about validity of sanction for three months only, as is being questioned, was ever made by respondent. Assertions were made by her therein that she was shocked to find that sanctioned loan had been declared null and void by Bank and no prior communication was made to her. Loan sanctioned to respondent has been cancelled in terms of following clause set out in sanction letter-cum-intimation, which reads as under :- it is to be clearly understood that these facilities are sanctioned subject to the convenience of the bank and may be cancelled at any time without prior notice before making available the sanctioned facilities. The bank may revoke in part or in full or withdraw/stop financial assistance at any stage without any notice or giving any reasons or any purpose whatsoever. Since respondent did not avail loan facility even after lapse of five months nor completed requisite formalities, aforesaid clause was invoked by Bank and sanction of loan had accordingly been withdrawn. Even in answer to legal notice, issued by respondent, Bank had reiterated withdrawal of sanctioned loan on revocation of aforesaid stipulations made in sanctioned order. Petitioner Bank in its letter dated 01.12.2006 also informed Rakesh Tuteja, Joint Secretary-cum-Treasurer, CIDCO about sanction of loan to its applicants including respondent who had not complied with requirement and sanction had accordingly lapsed, for loanee having not availed of loan facility within validity period of three months. Joint Secretary in aforesaid communication was also informed that Bank was yet willing to advance loan to them without certain concession which was made available to them earlier. Other communication made by SIDCO was on 27.10.2006 to respondent asking her for payment of interest on loan availed from Corporation Bank, Chandigarh. Yet there is another communication made by petitioner Bank to Managing Director, HSIDC, Panchkula about creation of mortgage in their favour ranking pari passu with HSIDC against housing loan to be granted to respondent. Other communication made by HSIDC to respondent is that of 10.08.2006 informing respondent about permission to avail additional loan subject to pari passu charge. SIDCO in their letter dated 11.03.2005 had informed respondent about grant of membership of HSIDC and Department of Industries, Haryana Employees Welfare Association. The purpose of making reference to all these communications made in the chain of transaction is to highlight that this was a group arrangement with certain special benefits having been conferred on members of Group which were not ordinarily available to individual borrowers. All communications in chain of transactions were made not directly to individual borrowers but either to SIDCO or nodal officer of HSIDC. Petitioner Bank had been making all communication with HSIDC, Panchkula through its nodal officer, namely, Managing Director and Assistant General Manager of HSIDC. One more redeeming feature of this transaction was that title deeds by way of first charge to secure aforesaid housing loan were deposited by borrowers with HSIDC, Panchkula, an officer of which was appointed as nodal officer and not with Bank. This arrangement was made consciously as original document of land and security were with HSIDC and not with petitioner Bank. Impliedly, petitioner Bank had extended loan facility to borrowers without any mortgage or security kept with them. This follows conclusion that it was so, because it was not an individual transaction but Group transaction and bank was not supposed to make individual communication to borrowers either in matter of sanction of loan or withdrawal of loan facility, once nodal officer was appointed in the matter for due communication to borrowers. If she finds fault with nodal officer for not making due communication to her, neither SIDCO nor nodal officer of HSIDC was arrayed as party in proceeding either before fora below or before us. If these aspects of the issue which remained unnoticed by fora below are to be given due consideration, no deficiency in service can be attributed to petitioner Bank. Respondent approaching State Bank of India for sanction of loan on a higher floating rate of interest was not a fall-out for deficiency on part of petitioner to enable her to avail loan facility. The revision in the circumstances succeeds, and finding recorded by State Commission is set aside, with no order as to cost.
......................JB.N.P. SINGHPRESIDING MEMBER ......................S.K. NAIKMEMBER
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
