JIND CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. vs ASHOK KUMAR

This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission in First Appeal No. 574/11 dated 04.09.2011 whereby the State Commission concurred with the order of the District Forum allowing the complaint and dismissed the appeal.

Briefly put, the facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that respondent Ashok Kumar filed consumer complaint in District Forum Jind that he had applied for loan of Rs.5.00 lacs under non farm sector with the opposite party bank. He complied with the necessary formalities. After due inspection Opposite Party No.3 recommended sanction of loan of Rs5.00 lacs and forwarded the matter for sanction to Opposite Party No.1. Opposite Parties No. 1 & 2, however, rejected the loan application. Claiming this to be deficiency in service, respondent raised a consumer dispute.

The Opposite Party on being served with the notice filed a written statement alleging that loan application was rejected because the Non Encumbrance Certificate was submitted under the forged signatures of Tehsildar Jind. It was pleaded that opposite party got suspicious because purported signature of Tehsildar on Non Encumbrance Certificate were on the white fluid applied on the certificate.

The District Forum on consideration of the pleadings and evidence allowed the complaint with following observation: "Resultantly, OP No.1 & 2 are directed to sanction the loan to the complainant. The OP No.2 is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- for harassment, mental pain, agony and financial loss and Rs.1000/- for litigation cost totaling to Rs.11,000/- to the complainant. This order be complied with within one month, failing which the amount of compensation and litigation cost shall carry 10% from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 12.1.2011 till payment and sanction of the loan."

Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the petitioner Bank filed an appeal. The State Commission dismissed the appeal vide impugned order.

Learned Shri Rustam Malik, Advocate for the petitioner has contended that orders of the foras below are not sustainable for the reason that foras below have failed to consider that respondent is only a prospective applicant for loan and he had no right that his loan must be sanctioned. Admittedly, the loan was not sanctioned and, therefore, relationship of consumer and service provider did not come into existence. As such, the consumer complaint itself was not maintainable. It is further contended that otherwise also, the opposite party was justified in rejecting the loan because the Non Encumbrance Certificate submitted alongwith proposal was suspect for the reason that the purported signatures of Tehsildar were on the white fluid applied on the relevant space.

Mr. Pawan Kumar Ray, Advocate for the respondent has argued in support of the impugned order.

It is admitted case of the parties that Non Encumbrance Certificate had a white fluid on a space meant for signatures of the issuing authority and on aforesaid white fluid mark, there was signature of Tehsildar. This circumstance, in our view, was sufficient for the opposite party to suspect the genuineness of the Non Encumbrance Certificate. Therefore, rejection of loan application cannot be termed as unjustified. Otherwise also, in order to successfully maintain the consumer complaint, the respondent was under obligation to establish that there is relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties. Admittedly, the respondent had merely applied for a loan, which was not sanctioned in his favour. Therefore, he was not a loanee and, as such, it cannot be said that there was relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties. That being the case, the complaint itself is not maintainable. The foras below have ignored this important aspect. Therefore, the orders of the foras below in our considered view suffer from material infirmity and cannot be sustained.

In view of the discussion, we allow the revision petition, set aside the impugned order and dismiss the complaint.