O.P.KINGAR vs Union Bank of India

THIS appeal by the complainant is directed against the order dated 1.6.1992 passed by the District Forum, Bangalore, in complaint No. 869/91, dismissing the complaint. The facts, briefly stated, are as follows:

THE appellant-complainant is the account holder in Union Bank of India, Domlur Branch, Bangalore. THE complainant required money for making payment of 3rd instalment of the sale price in connection with a site allotted to him at NOIDA, New Delhi. So the complainant approached the opposite party-bank for raising loan on the security of Vikas Patras, THE opposite party due to the financial restraints, initially declined to advance loan. THE complainant raised loan elsewhere with much difficulty on producing Vikas Patras and made payment of 3rd instalment at NOIDA, New Delhi. The complainant further averred that he petitioned to customer service centre about the refusal by the bank to advance loan required by him. Some time thereafter, the opposite party-bank sanctioned loan of Rs. 50,500/-. The opposite party bank insisted on the complainant to hand over the Vikas Patras to them before he could get the loan amount. The complainant could not hand-over the Vikas Patra bonds to the opposite party-bank, as he had already deposited them elsewhere to raise loan, in consequence of which, the opposite party-bank cancelled the loan sanctioned in his favour. The complainant, therefore, sought for a direction to the opposite party to disburse the loan and grant compensation of Rs. 75,000/- for the mental agony that he had undergone.

The opposite party filed the statement of objections, explaining the circumstances under which the loan could not be sanctioned earlier and subsequently came to be sanctioned in favour of the complainant.

THE opposite party further contended that the disbursement of the loan was controlled by the rules and regulations and due to the paucity of funds available and the restrictions imposed by the Reserve Bank of India, the loan could not be sanctioned but as a gesture of good will, it was subsequently sanctioned which could not be disbursed in favour of the complainant as he was not ready to produce the Vikas Patras. THE opposite party, having regard to these facts and circumstances, contended that there was no deficiency of service on their part. During the enquiry the parties did not lead any evidence. The District Forum, relied on the documents produced by the complainant, considered them as Exs. P-l and P-l(a) and the documents produced by the opposite party as Ex. R-l series.

THE District Forum, raised the point for consideration whether the opposite party committed deficiency of service and on consideration of material placed on record held that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and in that view, dismissed the complaint. The records have been called for and received. We have perused the records and also heard the submissions made by both the parties. Having regard to the submissions made by the parties, the only point that arises for consideration is whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party-bank?

THE complaint is against the Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Domlur Branch, Bangalore.

THE complainant applied to the opposite party on 9.8.1990 seeking a loan of Rs. 65,000/- on Indira Vikas Patras, as per Ex. R-l(b). THE opposite party transmitted the said application to the Regional Manager on 14.8.1990 seeking instructions in the matter in view of the financial restraints, however, pointing out that the request may be considered favourably. Ex. R-1(E), shows that the Regional Manager sought instructions from the Zonal office, on 22.8.1990, whether the application of the complainant may be forwarded with their recommendations. On 25.8.1990, the opposite party intimated the complainant that he was awaiting instructions of the higher authorities. By Ex. R-1(J) the opposite party intimated the complainant that the higher authorities had declined to sanction the loan due to funds constraints. It appears from the further material placed on record that subsequently, the higher authorities further considered and granted loan of Rs. 50,500/- sought for by the complainant, when the loan was to be disbursed in favour of the complainant, the complainant failed to produce Vikas Patras.

Having regard to these facts and in the circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Though the loan was subsequently sanctioned, and the opposite party was ready to disburse it, the complainant could not produce the Vikas Patras on the security of which the loan was sanctioned. Having regard to these facts, it cannot be said that there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.

THE District Forum considering all the aspects of the matter, held that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Having regard to these facts and in the circumstances of the case, we do not find any good ground to interfere in the order recorded by the District Forum. ORDER In the Result, therefore, this appeal fails and it is dismissed. The parties are directed to bear and pay their own costs. Appeal dismissed. _______________