Judgment:
(The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 22.09.2011, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order :-)
A.K. ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.
2. Â Complainant filed a complaint against the opposite party claiming direction to disburse the loan amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards costs.
3. Complainant to purchase a new car approached the opposite party for a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- and after furnishing all the necessary documents including creation of equitable mortgage by deposit of documents. The opposite party sent a requisition letter to the Sub Registrar of Assurances, Kothagiri to register deed for deposit the memorandum of title deeds in favour of the opposite party and registered on 18.8.08. The opposite party sanctioned the loan of Rs.2,00,000/- on 12.8.08. But the same was not distributed to him by stating evasive reasons. The complainant is working as senior lecturer in the District Institute of Education and Training, Kothagiri and there will not be any difficulty in recovering the loan amount from his salary and also document based on the mortgage and hence a legal notice was issued on 23.9.08 which was received on 26.9.08 by the opposite party and hence the complainant lodged the consumer complaint praying for the reliefs as above.
4. The opposite party denied the allegations in their written version except to admit the process of sanctioning of loan for Rs.2,00,000/- but as the complainant failed to comply with the necessity of providing documents relating to no due certificate from other banks and from the head of office for recovering the dues from his salary every month by giving an undertaking and because of the complainants attitude alone the delay was occurred and they are ready to disburse the loan as soon as the requests of the opposite party are complied with. Hence there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite party and the complaint to be dismissed.
5. On the basis of both sides materials and after an enquiry the District Forum dismissed the complaint by stating that the opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service.
6. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the complainant has come forward with this appeal and in the grounds of appeal among other things it is contended that the opposite party without any reason refused to disburse the loan when once the loan is sanctioned no right to retain the same without disbursement would amount to deficiency of service.
7. While considering both side arguments, averments and contentions it is the admitted case of both sides that the complainant has approached the opposite party to avail the car loan for Rs.2,00,000/- and as per the complainant he has produced necessary documents for the same including the documents for depositing title deed and also the memorandum of title deed was registered on the basis of the letter given by the opposite party with the Registrar of Assurances at Kothagiri. It is also not in dispute that the loan was not sanctioned by the opposite party after the sanction of loan on the ground that the complainant has not produced required documents regarding no due certificate from the other banks as the opposite party came to know that the complainant was a chronic defaulter in repaying loan availed from two other banks and in the application for loan with the opposite party he has furnished only the detail of housing loan availed from Sundaram Home Finance and suppressed the other details of loans. Hence the sanctioned loan was not disbursed. For this the opposite party relied upon the documents Exhibit B3, B4 and B5 which are given from Vijaya Bank, Kothagiri and Syindicate Bank, Kothagiri in which it is stated that the complainant availed Rs.1,50,000/- from Vijaya Bank and Rs.4,48,529.68 pending loan recovery with the Syndicate Bank and the debtor is named as PNR and the Vijaya Bank Bank proceeded with civil suit in O.S.No.109/2008 before the Sub-Court , Ooty. Further it is also contended by the opposite party that as per Exhibit B3 specimen for car loan application which is to be filled up and given as irrevocable letter of authority from the head of office of the loanee/complainant to certify that the recoveries will be made from the complainants salary for the loan availed. In Exhibit B3 the head of office has not signed and accepted for the terms and only the name of the complainant and his monthly salary alone were mentioned. Even though the memorandum of title deeds for deposit agreement was registered as admitted by both sides the opposite party contended that the complainant produced only certified copies of the documents and the originals were not produced. The complainant alleged that he had produced all the originals. But not filed any acknowledgment from the opposite party for the same.
8. In those circumstance when the loan is provisionally sanctioned by the bank/ opposite party subject to the terms and conditions to be complied since because mere sanction of loan the complainant cannot demand to disburse the loan amounts as a matter of right without complying the terms and conditions of the lender / opposite party and when he has suppressed the details of other subsisting loan availed from other bank and become defaulter and not produced no due certificate from such bank, the opposite party cannot be expected to disburse the loan by overriding the conditions. In those circumstances the complainant cannot be considered as filed this complaint with clean hands and the District Forum after considering all the details passed well considered order by dismissing the complaint in which we are of the view that there is no need for any interference, in view of the foregoing reasons stated and the discussions made. Complainant/appellants counsel represented that the registration was made for deposit of title deed as memorandum of deposit of title deeds without payment of loan to be nullified. In this regard we are of the view that the complainant has to approach the opposite party for the discharge of the memorandum of title deed registration with the Registrar of Assurances on approaching by the complainant, the opposite party is expected to resolve the same. Hence this appeal is to be dismissed as devoid of merits.
9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the order of the District Forum, Ooty in C.C.No.76/2008 dated 30.11.2009. There will be no order as to costs in this appeal.