Per Mr B A Shaikh, Hon’ble Presiding Member

1.      This appeal is filed by original complainant against the order dtd.07.06.2006 passed by District Consumer Forum, Wardha in consumer complaint No.6/2006, by which the complaint has been dismissed.

2.      Facts in brief giving rise to the present appeal are as under.

          The respondent had applied to the opposite party Nos.1 & 2 for home loan. The said loan was sanctioned by the opposite parties. However, it is alleged by the complainant in the consumer complaint that the entire loan was not paid and disbursed to him. Only part of loan of Rs.1,67,250/- was disbursed out of sanctioned loan of Rs.3.18 Lacs. It is also alleged by him that it constitutes deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Therefore, he filed the consumer complaint before Forum requesting that the opposite parties may be directed to pay balance loan amount of Rs.1,50,750/- and not to take undue advantage of five bank cheques given by him to the opposite parties as security for repayment of loan and also to pay him compensation of Rs.5.00 Lacs for physical & mental harassment and litigation expenses.

3.      The opposite parties had opposed that complaint by filing their common reply before the Forum. They admitted that the home loan of Rs.3.18 Lacs was sanctioned to the complainant as per his request and loan amount of Rs.1,67,250/- disbursed to him. They submitted that remaining loan amount was to be disbursed to the complainant after taking into consideration the progress of the construction made by him and their decision shall be final and conclusive and binding on the complainant.  It is alleged by the opposite parties that the complainant made no construction on the plot and therefore remaining amount of loan was not disbursed to him.  Thereafter, the complainant moved an application in writing on 07.01.2005 that he was not ready to construct the house on the said plot and he does not want the remaining amount of Rs1.50 Lac, out of sanctioned loan of Rs.3.18 Lacs. He had, therefore, requested the opposite parties not to release the remaining amount.  He had also requested that he should be granted facility of repayment by suitable EMI  of loan amount of Rs.1,67,250/-, which he has already availed.  As per his request remaining amount was not disbursed to him.  Thus, according to the opposite parties, the complainant has no right to claim any further amount alongwith compensation and cost.  Hence, the opposite parties requested that the complaint may be dismissed.

4.      The Forum below after hearing both parties and considering evidence brought on record passed the impugned order and thereby dismissed the complaint on the sole ground that the letter dtd.07.01.2005 given by the complainant to the opposite parties, reveals that he was not in need of balance amount of home loan and therefore accepting the said letter further amount of loan was not disbursed to him by the opposite party and hence no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party can be established.

5.      As observed above, this appeal is filed by the original complainant. We have heard advocate Mr S S Hemke appearing for the original complainant / appellant herein and Advocate Mr J A Vora appearing for the original opposite party Nos.1 & 2 / respondent Nos.1 & 2 herein. We have also perused the record of the appeal and copies of the record of original complaint placed before us. 

6.      The learned advocate of the appellant filed in the appeal copy of account statement of the appellant maintained by the respondents and submitted that after the impugned order was passed, the respondents sanctioned further loan of Rs.90,000/- on 20.02.2007 and therefore it can be said that the respondents deliberately had refused to disburse further loan.  He also submitted that the letter dtd.07.01.2005 was written by the original complainant / appellant as pressurised by the officers of the respondents and therefore same ought not to have considered by the Forum. 

7.      On the other hand, the learned advocate of the respondents submitted that no such plea was raised before the Forum by the complainant that letter dtd.07.01.2005 was sent by him under some pressure tactics of the respondents. He has drawn our attention to the counter affidavit filed before the Forum, in which there was no whisper under which the said letter dtd. 07.01.2005 was written by the original complainant / appellant to the respondents. He further submitted that the account statement filed in appeal though shows that further loan of Rs.90,000/- was disbursed by the respondents on 20.02.2007, but the loan account shows name of co-borrower as Rekha Bhagaram Katkamwar and she was not joined as a complainant in the complaint though she is shown as a co-borrower of the loan.  He further submitted that the amount of Rs.90,000/- subsequently disbursed because the complainant had approached the respondents and made fresh request for grant of further loan and accordingly his fresh request was considered and further amount of Rs.90,000/- was disbursed to him.  He, therefore, requested that the appeal may be dismissed.

8.      We find substance in the aforesaid submission of the learned advocate of the respondent.  The complainant raised no ground before the Forum to show that the letter dtd.07.01.2007 was written by him to the respondents under sum compulsion or pressure. The said letter is very specific to the effect that the complainant did not want further loan amount of Rs.1,50,750/-.  He had requested the opposite party under that letter for grant of suitable EMI of repayment of for loan of Rs.1,67,250/-.  Thus, the Forum has rightly believed that letter dtd.07.01.2005 in the absence of any pleading and evidence on the part of complainant to disbelieve the same.

9.      Moreover, we also find that the disbursement of further amount of Rs.90,000/- on 20.02.2007 does not show that the respondents had earlier not disbursed that loan amount due to some mala fides intention. On the contrary disbursement of loan of Rs.90,000/- on 20.02.2007 shows that subsequently fresh request was made by the complainant / appellant to the opposite parties / respondents herein and considering his fresh request the said loan of Rs.90,000/- was disbursed. Therefore, we find that when the respondents, on the request of the complainant as per letter dtd.07.01.2005, did not disburse the further loan amount of Rs.1,50,750/-, the Forum below has rightly come to the conclusion that the opposite parties / respondents have not rendered deficient service to the complainant.  We, thus, find that the impugned order is just & proper and needs no interference in the appeal. 

          Accordingly, the following order is passed.

ORDER

 i.       The appeal is dismissed.

ii.       No order as to costs in this appeal.

iii.      Copy of the order be furnished to both parties free of cost.