Ganesh Madhavrao Maslekar vs STATE BANK OF INDIA

THE State Bank of India, issued a pamphlet under the caption "Secure your Future with Home Loans", which is in Question -Answer form. One of the Question and Answers, runs as follows: "Q. If all my papers are in order, within how much time, should the Home Loan be normally disbursed?

If all the papers are in place, then the time taken to disburse the loan should be ideally 15 working days from the time you apply for it, provided the property to be financed is clean. The disbursal of loan can be faster in case you have a preapproval loan letter and if the property concerned is pre -approved".

This attracted attention of the complainant, Mr. Ganesh Madhavrao Maslekar. He thought that he would get the Home Loan till 30.6.2010 and save the Service Tax and VAT. He applied for loan on 11.6.2010. However, the loan was sanctioned on 9.7.2010, but was disbursed on 14.7.2010. The complaint was filed alleging that by publishing deceitful advertisement, the OP had committed unfair trade practice. He claimed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation. The District Forum dismissed the complaint and the State Commission, too, dismissed the Appeal filed by the complainant.

WE have heard the complainant/petitioner in person. He vehemently argued that due to negligence, inaction and passivity on the part of the OP, he had to pay a sum of Rs. 41,200 as the Service Tax and VAT which was introduced w.e.f. 1.7.2010. We see no merit in these arguments. The Counsel for the respondent/OP argued that the said pamphlet is not mandatory, it is directory, it is the instructions given to the employees of Bank so that their bona fide may not be questioned. Again, we find that the word "ideally" cannot be equated with the word "mandatory". There was no contract between the parties. This pamphlet was just an ''offer''. There is not even an iota of evidence on the record to show that the petitioner has made it a condition precedent that it must be paid to him till 30.6.2010. Moreover, the advertisement talks about 15 working days. It was argued that if Saturday is counted as half working day, the 15th working day will come to an end on 1.7.2010. In that event too, the petitioner had to give the service tax. There is not an element of mens rea in this case. It may not give rise to unfair trade practice or deficiency in service of the State Bank of India. Moreover, in Sree Kanaka Durga Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. v. State Bank of India, : I (2003) CPJ 62(NC), it was held that non -disbursement of loan does not amount to deficiency in service. It is well known, now -a -days that the borrowers do not pay back the loan amounts to the Banks, smoothly. For Bankers, it would be a matter of walking on eggs. The Bank has to make enquiries before sanctioning the loan. We do not find any flaw with the orders passed by the Fora below. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.