Shri Yogesh Madhav Thombare Vs. Shri Vyavstapak Vyapari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd., Taluka and District Satara and Others - Court Judgment

Order:

Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member

1. This is an appeal filed by the original complainant whose complaint was dismissed by the District Consumer Forum, Satara by its judgement and order dated 29/4/2009 passed in consumer complaint no.72/2009.

2. On merits, we are finding that complainant had applied for loan of Rs.8 lakhs with O.P.no.1- Vyapari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd. O.P.nos.2 to 16 are the Directors of the said Pat Sanstha. Loan was applied on 15/2/2006 and according to complainant, he had made compliance of paper work, but despite the documents produced the O.Ps did not bother to sanction the loan and therefore, he alleged that he suffered huge loss and as such, he filed consumer complaint for recovering loss of Rs.1,45,800/- and interest thereon of Rs.96,183/- and also claimed Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and Rs.5000/- as cost.

3. O.Ps filed written statement at Exhibit 23 and denied the allegations made by the complainant. They denied most of the averments made by the complainant. They however admitted that complainant had preferred loan application and it was processed. In the course of processing, it was found that complainant was not having any immovable property, which was perfect and marketable one. They had sought opinion of the Legal Advisor and the Legal Advisor reported that complainants immovable property was attached by Loan Recovery officer of Janata Sahakari Bank and therefore, said property cannot be considered as a property of the complainant on which charge or mortgage can be created. It was also found that complainants surety or guarantor was also not proper. Applicant had taken loan from Rajeshwar Yuvak Vikas Sahakari. It was not paid back and therefore, recovery suit was pending against the complainant. It was also found that complainant had also taken some other loan from other Financial institutions and taking all these facts into account, O.Ps pleaded that they had legally and rightly withheld granting of loan to the complainant. Aggrieved by this fact, he filed consumer complaint.

4. Forum below no doubt held that complainant was consumer of O.P.-Pat Sanstha, but Forum below found that his application for getting loan of Rs.8 lakhs was justifiably rejected by the O.Ps. While taking loan, he had not mentioned on what ground he was seeking loan. It was also found that the complainant was not having marketable property, which could be mortgaged as a security to the loan being advanced by O.P. Pat Sanstha. There was search report given by Mr.Ranjit Rathi -Advocate against the complainant. In the search report, it was mentioned that complainants property was already encumbered by Janata Sahakari bank. Therefore, it was found that complainant was not having any property to be mortgaged to secure the loan that was being sought by complainant from O.P. Pat Sanstha. As such, complainants application for loan was rightly turned down by the O.P. Pat Sanstha and Forum below found that O.P. Society was within its right to reject the said loan application presented by the complainant. So holding, Forum below was pleased to dismiss the complaint. Aggrieved thereby complainant himself has filed this appeal.

5. We heard Mr. Vikrant Makhare -Advocate for the appellant. Notice was not at all issued. After hearing Advocate for appellant, we are finding that there is no substance in the appeal. Forum below rightly dismissed the complaint. Complainant had no right to claim that O.Ps should advance him huge loan of Rs.8 lakhs. It was found that by the respondents that complainant was not having clear and marketable title of the property on which he was going to take the loan from the respondent Pat Sanstha. The property of the complainant was already encumbered with the previous loan taken from another Financial institution. It is for this reason relying on the search report given by Advocate Rathi, the Pat Sanstha was pleased to turn down complainants request for loan. In the circumstances, Forum below rightly held that there was no deficiency in service on the part of respondent Pat Sanstha and complaint was devoid of any substance. We confirm the said finding and hold that the appeal is appearing to be devoid of any merits and it is as such liable to be rejected at the admission stage itself.

6. In filing the appeal there appears to be delay of 13 days and therefore misc. application for condonation of delay is filed. In the misc. application, sufficient cause has been mentioned in para 4 and 5 of the application. It is supported by an affidavit sworn before Notary Advocate. Relying on the cause mentioned in the condonation of delay application, we are inclined to allow the said application and condone the delay. Hence the following order:-

Order:

1. Misc. application no.1002/2009 for condonation of delay is allowed and delay is condoned.

2. Appeal filed by the complainant stands summarily rejected.

3. No order as to costs.

4. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.