Saswati Bhattarcharya vs Shyamal Shankar Bhattarcharya

THESE revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner against common order dated 25 -04 -2014 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (in short, ''the State Commission'') in S.C. Case No. FA/493/2011 Smt. Saswati Bhattacharya & Anr. Vs. Manager, Syndicate Bank & Ors. and & FA/21/2012 Branch Manager & Ors. Vs. Smt. Saswati Bhattacharya & Anr., by which while allowing FA/21/2012, dismissed FA/493/2011, whereby order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/respondent entered into agreement with Opposite Party No. 1 / Respondent No. 1 for taking home loan and Opposite Party No. 1 sanctioned loan of Rs.11,20,000/ - vide letter dated 28 -12 -2006 for purchase of flat. Opposite party released Rs.1,53,000/ - out of the sanctioned amount. Later on there was civil litigation between the complainant and the developer, which was decided in favor of complainant. Complainant requested opposite party to release amount, which was refused by opposite party. Complainant had to obtain loan on stringent terms and conditions from private source for payment to the developer. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite party, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. Opposite party resisted complaint and submitted that balance loan amount could not be released due to non -observance of the terms and conditions of loan agreement by complainant and due to non -furnishing of document as required by letter dated 16 -03 -2009 and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed opposite party to pay Rs.20,000/ - as compensation and Rs.5,000/ - as cost of litigation. Both the parties filed appeals before State Commission and learned State Commission vide impugned order dismissed appeal of the complainant but allowed appeal of the opposite party and set aside order of District Forum and dismissed complaint, against which these revision petitions have been filed.

HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned District Forum rightly allowed complaint but learned State Commission committed error in dismissing complaint, hence revision petition be admitted.

PERUSAL of record reveals that by letter dated 28 -12 -2006 loan of Rs.11,20,000/ - was sanctioned by opposite party in favor of complainant and some amount was released and agreement was executed between the parties. By letter dated 16 -03 -2009 opposite party asked complainant to submit indemnity bond of total loan amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not place any document on record to show that complainant submitted indemnity bond as asked by opposite party. Learned counsel for the petitioner has put much stress on letter dated 25 -04 -2009 issued by opposite party to the complainant, in which it was observed that release of balance amount of housing loan will be considered only after disposal of appeal pending before Calcutta High Court filed by the developer. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by this letter opposite party did not ask for submission of indemnity bond, hence release of amount could not have been withheld for want of indemnity bond. This argument is devoid of force because by letter dated 16 -03 -2009 opposite party asked complainant to submit indemnity bond and nowhere opposite withdrew that demand and in such circumstances merely by not referring same demand in letter dated 25 -04 -2009 it cannot be inferred that this demand was given up by opposite party.

LEARNED State Commission while allowing appeal of opposite party rightly observed as under: - - "From the Memo of Appeal preferred by the Complainants/Appellants it is clear that they refused to comply with the conditions including furnishing additional indemnity. In the decision reported in Bero Cold Storage Vs. UCO Bank though Chairman and Ors. it has been held that where sanctioned loan was not disbursed to the Complainant for non -fulfilment of certain terms and conditions of loan, Bank could not be held liable for deficiency in service. In another decision in the case of M/s Natraj Borewell Services Vs. The Asstt. General Manager, Indian Bank and Ors. it has been held that non -grant of financial accommodation or non -grant of loan by a Bank does not amount to deficiency in service. In the instant case it is an admitted fact that the Complainants/Appellants refused to comply with the terms and conditions as laid down in the letter dated 16/03/09 of the Appellant Bank. Relying on the aforesaid decisions, we are of the view that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant Bank. The decisions cited by the Learned Counsel for the Complainants/Appellants are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. The Appellants/Complainants are not entitled to get any relief. The complaint is liable to be dismissed."

IN the light of aforesaid discussion, I do not find any illegality, irregularly or jurisdiction error in the impugned order and revision petitions are liable to be dismissed at admission stage.

CONSEQUENT LY , revision petitions filed by the petitioner are dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.