PARTAP SINGH vs Mahavir Singh Yadav

K .S. Chaudhari, J This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners/complainants against the impugned order dated 18.01.2008 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 826/2007 (Hry)/RBT/712/2007 and Appeal No. 677/2007 (Hry)/RBT/07/2008 - Pratap Singh and Ors. Vs. Mahinder Singh Yadav & Ors. by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside and complaint was dismissed.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainants/petitioners entered into an agreement on 18.2.2005 to purchase agricultural land for Rs.34.50 lakhs and paid Rs.4,00,000/- as earnest money to the vendors with the promise that they will get the sale deed executed upto 30.3.2005, failing which, earnest money would be forfeited. Complainants applied for loan with OPs/respondents and deposited Rs.4,000/- each for processing of loan on 21.2.2005. OP No. 4 sanctioned loan of Rs.21,31,000/- vide letter dated 28.2.2005 and all the formalities for obtaining loan were completed by the complainants. Later on, OP No. 4 vide letter dated 9.3.2005 sanctioned loan of Rs.30,00,000/- as per collector rate list, but loan was not released. From time to time, period of executing deed was got extended by the complainant, but as OP failed to release the loan amount and complainant failed to make payment under agreement to sell, Vendor forfeited the earnest money of Rs.4,00,000/-. Complainants alleging deficiency on the part of OPs filed complaint and claimed Rs.4,10,000/- as compensation along with interest. OPs contested complaint and submitted that loan was never sanctioned and complainants never completed formalities; hence, complaint be dismissed. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed the complaint and directed OPs to pay Rs.4,10,000/- and further directed to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation and Rs.2200/- as cost of litigation along with 12% p.a. interest. Appeal filed by the petitioners for enhancement was dismissed and appeal filed by the respondents was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners submitted that even after sanction of loan, respondents have not released loan and committed deficiency and learned District Forum rightly allowed complaint, but learned State Commission has committed error in passing the impugned order; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law, which does not call for any interference; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

PERUSAL of record reveals that petitioners entered into an agreement for purchase of land and applied for loan to respondents, but petitioners have failed to place any document on record regarding sanction of loan. Learned State Commission has observed as under: "11. Now only question to be seen is whether complainants are consumers and there is deficiency on the part of appellants and respondent No. 4 in not sanctioning loan or if the loan had been sanctioned then in disbursing the same. Complainants had not placed on file any documents showing that the loan in favour of complainants had been sanctioned by the appellants and respondent No. 4. The letter annexure C-21 dated 16.3.2005 which was issued by Haryana State Coop./Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Society Ltd. to Kosli Coop Sehkari Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Society permitted the society to enhance the sanction of the loan upto 90% instead of 75% against hypothecation of the property. They were further allowed to adopt the value of land @ Rs.21,31,000/- per acre or the actual rate as per registry in all the three cases referred. Therefore, this letter does not show that the Haryana State Coop. Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. - Head office had sanctioned loan or had given any direction to the Primary coop. agr. And Rural Development Bank Ltd. to sanction loan. The case was still at the processing stage. 12. Complainants were only prospective customers/loanees. It was the discretion of the bank either to sanction the loan or to refuse the same. No cause of action had arisen in favour of the complainants as the loan had not been sanctioned. If any indirect loss has been suffered by the complainants for not sanctioning of loan by the appellants and respondent No. 4 then appellants and respondent No. 4 are not to blame. It cannot be said that they had committed any deficiency in service. The complainants do not come in the definition in service. The complainants do not come in the definition of ''consumer ''. It is not the case that loan had been sanctioned and the appellants and respondent No.4 had not mala fide disbursed the loan. The loan is sanctioned strictly according to the policy of appellant No. 3 i.e. the Haryana State Coop. Agri. and Rural Development Bank Ltd. Even appellants had written letters dated 19.7.2005 and registered letter dated 1.8.2005 requiring complainants to remove certain deficiencies so that process of disbursement of loan could be finalized but they refused to accept those letters. 13. The counsel for appellants has referred to an authority of Hon ''ble National Commission titled M/s. Sree Kanaka Durga Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India - 2002 (2) CPC 617 to contend that even if sanctioned loan remained in the file of bank and no sanctioned letter was delivered to the complainant and thereafter bank decided not to go ahead with grant of loan due to unfulfilment of certain conditions by the complainant then in that case bank did not commit any deficiency in service. In the present case loan had not been sanctioned at all as the complainants did not complete certain formalities. Therefore, appellants had not committed any deficiency in service ".

Thus, it becomes clear that petitioners could not place any document showing sanction of loan by the respondents and letters dated 28.2.2005 and 9.3.2005 are not loan sanction letters but they merely convey the value of land per acre for approval of loan. Petitioners never gave earnest money under agreement to purchase land, under any assurance of release of loan by respondents. Even after sanction of loan, it was not obligatory on the part of respondents to release applied loan and in such circumstances, learned State Commission has not committed any error in passing impugned order and setting aside order of District Forum allowing complaint.

WE do not find any illegality, irregularity, or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

CONSEQUENTLY , revision petition filed by the petitioners against respondents is dismissed with no order as to costs.