State Bank of India vs NANAK CHAND ARORA

PETITIONER was the opposite party before the District Forum, where the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner, State Bank of India.

UNDISPUTED facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant desirous of buying a new truck approached the petitioner for its financing and as per the details of records, the loan was to be the extent of Rs. 3 lakh and the remainder amount of Rs. 2,76,505 was to come in the form of margin money, making it a total of Rs. 5,76,505 being the cost price of chassis and body of the truck. It was the case of the respondent/complainant that he had deposited enough margin money in the Savings Account with the bank as also an F.D. of Rs. 50,000, yet when the loan was not getting released, in frustration, he wrote to the petitioner that either loan be released or its amount be refunded which was done but a complaint was filed before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner by way of stating that there was adequate margin available with the bank both in the form of deposit and in the form of guarantor and non-release of loan amount is a case of deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner. District Forum after hearing the parties dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by this order, an appeal was filed before the State Commission, who allowed the appeal and directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 50,000 as compensation. Aggrieved by this order this revision petition has been filed before us. We heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the material on record. Basic facts are not disputed. The only point of controversy is whether there was adequate margin money available with the bank to release the loan amount or not. We need not traverse any further than to reproduce the noting on the file after receipt and processing of Vigilance Report related to this case. The note of the Chief Manager of the bank reads as follows : "1.......................... 2. If the Branch did not want to finance the borrower, he should have been asked to get valuation report of his house as (illegible) certificate. 3. It is also observed that the borrower had adequate funds in his a/c (Rs. 2.40 lakh, on 20.3.2006 to take care of margin money requirement. Shortage of margin money cannot, therefore, be accepted as the reason for refusal of loan to Shri Nanak Chand." (Emphasis supplied)

This leaves us in doubt that adequate margins were available with the bank and non-release of loan amount is certainly a case of deficiency in service on the part of the purchaser bank for which State Commission has rightly awarded a compensation of Rs. 50,000.

IN the aforementioned circumstances, the order of the State Commission does not call for any interference. This revision petition has no merit, hence dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.