IMPORTANT POINT
Bank has a right to not to disburse loan or even to cancel loan.

S.R. Khanzode, Judicial Member—This appeal is filed by original Complainants for enhancement of compensation awarded in their favour as per order dated 21.11.2008 passed in Consumer Complaint No.63 of 2008, Smt. Anagha Anil Joshi & Anr. v. Manager, District Central Co-operative Bank, Ratnagiri & Anr., passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ratnagiri (‘the Forum’ in short).

2. It is the grievance of the Appellants/original Complainants (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Complainants’ for the sake of brevity) that they tried to avail an education loan of Rs. 10,60,000 for the Complainant No.2, namely Mr. Anand Anil Joshi from the District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Ratnagiri (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Bank’ for the sake of brevity). On 12.8.2006, the Bank informed about sanction of loan subject to fulfilment of conditions. It is further submitted on behalf of the Complainants that they have fulfilled those conditions except that one ‘No Objection Letter’ from Smt. Vijaya Dilip Datar, relating to title clearance certificate. The Complainants asked for six months time to fulfill the said condition. Assuming that the Bank would sanction loan, the Complainant No.2 had taken an admission and made an arrangement for making initial payment of Rs.1,50,000 and paid the fees accordingly. The Bank gave six months period to fulfill the condition regarding title clearance of No Objection Certificate of Smt. Vijaya Dilip Datar but, at that time asked for additional security in terms of flats Nos.2 & 5 situated at Shubham Apartments. It was not convenient for the Complainants to fulfil said additional condition. Loan was accordingly, not disbursed as a result of which ultimately for not paying the fees, admission of the Complainant No.2 was cancelled and as such, as alleged, Complainant No.2 suffered a loss of one educational year. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Bank for asking for additional securities and for want of the same to not to release the loan, a consumer complaint was filed. It was partly allowed by the Forum directing the Opponents to pay compensation of Rs.15,000. Not satisfied with the same this appeal is filed by the original Complainants.

3. We heard Advocate Smt. R.Y. Sapre, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants/original Complainants. Respondents/original Opponents preferred to remain absent inspite of due service of notice.

4. In the instant case, the loan was sanctioned from the District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Ratnagiri and therefore, deficiency in service, if any, for not sanctioning & disbursing the loan could be alleged against said Bank, which is a jurisdic person within the meaning of Section 2(1)(m) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity). The Bank is not a party to the proceedings. ‘Manager’ and ‘Deputy Manager’ of the said Bank are separate and distinct juridic persons than the Bank itself and admittedly, they are not the ‘service providers’. Therefore, entertaining a consumer complaint and passing an award against the Opponents, who are the Manager and Deputy Manager of the Bank, is per se erroneous. Since the Opponents themselves have not preferred any appeal against the impugned order, the same stood concluded and achieved finality in view of provisions of Section 24 of the Act.

5. In view of abovereferred circumstances, the appeal for enhancement of compensation filed by the original Complainants itself need not be entertained. Apart from this, it is a discretion of the bank to ask for particular securities or additional security and if those conditions are not fulfilled, the Bank has a right to not to disburse the loan or even to cancel the loan. Therefore, there cannot be any deficiency in service on the part of the Bank for this purpose since the element of ‘hiring’ of any service is absent in the case. For this reason also, the Complainants ought to have satisfied themselves w