CANARA BANK vs BALDEV SINGH

PETITIONERS /Opposite Party No.1 -Canara Bank and Opposite Party No.2 -Mr.S. K. Sachdeva, being aggrieved by impugned order dated 31.5.2012 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh(for short, ''State Commission'') in (First Appeal No. 07 of 2008)have filed separate revision petitions.

BRIEF facts are that Respondent No.1/Complainant (Baldev Singh) in order to make improvement of his agricultural land applied for a credit loan to the tune of Rs.5 lacs from Canara Bank as per their Scheme launched as ''Kissan Credit Card Scheme''. He completed all formalities and his land measuring 42 kanals and 9 marlas situated at village Bandala, was mortgaged vide mortgaged deed dated 11.01.2007. Thereafter, loan amount was to be released by Mr.S.K. Sachdeva, who made a demand of illegal gratification to the tune of 10% of the loan amount. However, complainant refused to pay the same. The bank therefore, did not release the amount, due to which complainant suffered mental tension and harassment and had to incur extra expenditure in incurring the loan from the other bank at a higher rate of interest. Complainant therefore, prayed for compensation of Rs.50,000/ - for mental tension and harassment, Rs.5,500/ - as costs of litigation with interest @ 18% per annum till the amount of loan is released.

CANARA Bank in its written statement has admitted about launching of ''Kissar Credit Card Scheme'' and the fact, that complainant had approached it under the Scheme and applied for a crop loan. It has also been admitted, that land of complainant was mortgaged in favour of the bank, vide mortgage deed dated 11.1.2007. It is stated that before granting loan and disbursement of the loan amount, bank has to safeguard its interest. Complainant pressurised the bank to release the loan amount immediately without verification of Rapat with Halqa Patwari, which was not possible for the bank. Documents of the loan were still to be completed and Rapat verification was also pending. Mere mortgage of land in favour of the bank, does not entitle the complainant to get the loan without complying with other formalities. The bank is still ready to give the loan amount provided complainant return all the documents taken by him and complete the documentation etc. as per bank''s requirement. On the other hand, Opposite Party No.2 -Mr. S. K. Sachdeva has filed separate reply on the line of Canara Bank. He had denied that any illegal gratification was demanded by him. Further, he has stated that no formalities, except creation of mortgage of land was completed by the complainant in this case.

DISTRICT Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur (for short, ''District Forum'') vide order dated 25.10.2007 dismissed the complaint.

BEING aggrieved, complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission, which set aside the order of the District Forum and passed following directions; "15. The OPs are directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/ - towards mental agony and harassment caused to him. This amount shall be paid by the OPs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the OPs would be liable to pay the same along with interest @ 9% per annum since the filing of the complaint i.e. 15.6.2007 till the amount is actually paid. In that eventuality, the OPs shall also pay him litigation costs of Rs.5,500/ -.

In order to safeguard the interest of the bank, it is made clear that they are at liberty to recover the aforesaid amount from OP No.2 after affording him an opportunity of being heard if and so required under the Rules governing the service conditions of the branch manager."

IMPUGNED order has been challenged by Mr.S.K. Sachdeva -OP No.1 by filing (Revision Petition No.3328 of 2012) whereas, Canara Bank -OP No.2, has filed (Revision Petition No.3433 of 2012).

NOTICE of above petitions was issued to the Complainant -Baldev Singh/Respondent No.1 -herein, who was duly served, but had not appeared before this Commission Therefore, he was proceeded exparte, vide order dated 13.08.2014.

WE have heard Mr. Mukund Gupta, Advocate for Mr. S.K. Sachdeva as well as Mr. Rakesh Pathak, Advocate for Canara Bank and gone through the record.

IT has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners, that loan was never sanctioned in favour of the complainant, since he did not complete the formalities for the purpose of obtaining the loan. Moreover, documents submitted by him were yet to be verified. Hence, the complaint was not maintainable

STATE Commission in its impugned order observed; "7. The case of the respondents is that the Ops are not bound to release the loan and put the financial interest of the bank in jeopardy and, therefore, they are fully competent to refuse to disburse the loan where there is even a slightest doubt about the paying capacity of the complainant legally the stand is correct but the question is whether there was any justifiable reason to deny the loan to the complainant. In the present case, it was mentioned in para 4 of the reply that the complainant was not completing the bank formalities and the public money, therefore, cannot be thrown away without safeguarding the interest of the bank and without completing the required formalities. Two grounds given by the OP respondent bank for not releasing the amount are that the complainant was not completing/signing the documents needed for disbursal of the loan and secondly, the report about the mortgage of the complainant''s property was to be entered in the Roznamcha of the Patwari and the Bank Manager was yet to verify the same. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that these are lame excuses and in fact, all the documents had already been executed by the complainant. He has referred to the fact which is admitted by the OP respondent bank that the complainant had applied for the crop loan of Rs.5 lacs which means that he submitted a proper application needed therefor. Ex.C4 contains the documents which were obtained by the complainant from the concerned offices and were handed over to the bank. These are 8 documents as follows : -

Jamabandi for the year 2003 -04 Village Bandala

Copy of Khasra Girdawaris Kharif 2006

Jamabandi for the year 2000 -01

Copy of Khasra Girdawaries Kharif, 2006

Non -encumbrance certificate from 1.4.1993 to 19.12.2006

No due certificate

Surplus Area Certificate

Affidavit of Baldev Singh

On the basis of these documents, the OP respondent bank had obtained the opinion of Ashok Kumar Gupta, Advocate which is Ex.C4. He was of the opinion that the complainant has a valid, absolute, clear and marketable title in the aforesaid property as per the documents mentioned above. Thereafter, the complainant executed a mortgage deed in favour of the bank and this fact also has been admitted by the OP. Vide this mortgage deed, the complainant mortgaged 42 Kanals 9 marlas of his agricultural land in their favour. It was got registered with the Sub -Registrar concerned, Whether a person who has performed all these acts would refuse to sign documents is unimaginable. In fact, the persons like OP No.2 can tell lies but the circumstances do not. A person who is in need of a crop loan, who has procured a number of documents from the offices who approached the bank and mortgaged his agricultural land would not pressurize the Bank Manager nor would refuse to execute any documents. The contention of the OPs, in this respect, is, therefore, far from truth.

AS regards the report to be lodged with the Halqa Patwari regarding the mortgage which the bank manager was alleging that he was to verify, is meaningless. The rights of the parties are to flow from the registered mortgage deed which has already been got registered in favour of the OPs. Making an entry in the Roznamcha by the Patwari on its basis is just a ministerial act and is to be got done by the bank at any time by producing the mortgage deed. The loan, therefore, could not have been refused to the complainant on any such ground but it appears the Ops could not find out any excuse to conceal the truth and, therefore, they have coined this one to camouflage the reality. It was mentioned by the OPs in para 4 of the reply that all these documents were taken away by the complainant and he left the bank by threatening OP No.2 with dire consequences. When the complainant was following the due procedure, there must be compelling circumstances with the complainant to take such a step. According to the complainant, OP No.2 demanded 10% of the loan as illegal gratification to which he did not agree and, therefore, the manager refused to release the loan. There appears to be truth in this contention though the complainant is the only person to prove this fact. On the other hand, OP No.2 has filed his affidavit denying this allegation. It is, however, not understood that if the formalities had not been completed as alleged by OP No.2, then, why the loan account was opened in the bank, copy of which is Ex.C3. In fact, it is the last step and, thereafter, only the release of the amount was left, which according to the complainant was not done due to the reason that he refused to pay illegal gratification to OP No.2. As regards Ex.P7 and Ex.P8 which have been relied upon by the learned District Forum, we are of the opinion that these documents are not admissible in evidence. Ex.P7 is purported to be a letter written by Kashmir Singh and signed by some other persons whereby Kashmir Singh stated that no demand of illegal gratification was made by OP No.2 in his presence and his name has been unnecessarily dragged by the complainant as a witness in this episode. Kashmir Singh did not file his affidavit to support this contention. It is not explained by the OPs as to why the affidavit of Kashmir Singh was not obtained if the facts mentioned in Ex.P7 were correct. Ex.P7 is not per se admissible. It, therefore, cannot be read in evidence.

SIMILARLY , Ex.P8 and Ex.P9 are purported to be Panchayat decisions vide which it was mentioned that the complainant came in the Panchayat and admitted that OP No.2 had not demanded illegal gratification from him. Ex.P8 and Ex.P9 are not proved by any signatory of the same. The affidavit of none of the signatories was filed by the OPs to support this contention. Ex.P8 and Ex.P9 are not signed by the complainant. If the complainant had been present and had admitted to this effect, there is no reason why his signatures were not obtained on these documents. The fact that the complainant filed the present complaint three months later on 15.03.2007 falsifies this version that the complainant admitted that no such demand was made by OP no.2. The learned counsel argued that OP No.2 being a bank manager was in a capacity to influence any co -villager to whom he can grant loan to any extent and even in adverse circumstances. We are, therefore, of the opinion that none of these documents proves the innocence of OP No.2.

THE fact that all the formalities for sanction of loan were compelled and even the bank account was opened proves that loan had been sanctioned, there must have been some unusual demand by OP No.2 which was not met by the complainant, due to which, he refused to release the loan. The reason given by OP".

STATE Commission further observed; " 13. However, in these proceedings, we are of the opinion that the OP bank cannot be compelled to release the loan to a person to whom they do not want to advance the loan. No such order, therefore, can be passed to direct the OP to release the loan amount to the complainant. Moreover, the complainant claims that he has already obtained the loan from some other bank at a higher rate of interest and, therefore, we are of the opinion that he does not require this loan. The request of the complainant, in this respect, cannot be accepted.

We, however, cannot lose sight of the fact that the complainant had spent not only a considerable amount of money in procuring the documents but has wasted his valuable time in the process. He had been waiting to get the loan but the same was refused on frivolous grounds due to the attitude of OP No.2 which certainly caused him mental tension and harassment for which he needs to be compensated by the bank. We have already held that the reasons given by OPs for refusing to release the loan are not genuine. The OPs should, therefore, pay a sum of Rs.50,000/ - as compensation to the complainant for mental and physical harassment caused by them to the complainant and refusing to disburse the loan."

THUS , it is manifestly clear from the above findings of the State Commission that the complainant had furnished all necessary documents to the bank. Inspite thereof, petitioners did not grant him the loan. This fact, that mortgaged deed of the land of the complainant was already registered in favour of the bank, goes on to show that complainant was very much interested in getting the loan.

THE act of the petitioners, after having obtained all the necessary documents from the complainant and not sanctioning the loan, clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Therefore, we hold that State Commission had not committed any jurisdictional error or illegality, in passing the impugned order. Accordingly, these revision petition stand dismissed having no merit.

PARTIES shall bear their own cost.