ORDER

THIRU.S.KARUPPIAH, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.

1. The Facts:

The complainant intended to construct a home by getting a loan from opposite party and approached the society. The society informed the complainant to become the member of the society then only he can be sanctioned a loan . Believing his version the complainant obtained various documents for his land and other related documents and submitted to the opposite party bank with the fond hope that he will be sanctioned loan for construction of his building. The complainant also spent more than Rs.29000/- for getting necessary documents from officials. But the opposite party informed the complainant that his loan was rejected and so, the complainant sent legal notice for which the opposite party replied that the loan was not sanctioned for the reasons that the complainant is old aged 66 and the guide line value is very low. The above refusal amounted to deficiency in service hence the complaint is filed claiming Rs.4400/- and also Rs.25000/- towards damages for mental agony. The opposite party filed the written version stating that the sanctioning of loan is the discretionary power and the loan was not sanctioned because of lacking of certain eligibility criteria so there is no deficiency in service on their side. The District Commission received proof affidavit of complainant and opposite party and marked Ex.A1 to A18, Ex.B1.

2. After perusal of entire materials the District Commission finally awarded

Rs.25,000/- and Rs.4400/- and cost of Rs.2000/-.

3. Aggrieved over the same. The appeal has been preferred by the Opposite Grounds: Commission is against facts and law. The District Forum failed to see that sanctioning of loan is the prerogative right of the appellant and the complainant not eligible to get loan. Their refusal is not a deficiency.

4. In this case both side filed written argument and oral arguments were also heard. In this case it is an admitted fact that the complainant applied for sanctioning of housing loan which was returned by the opposite party since some eligibility criteria as per the norms was not satisfied in particular the above loan was returned as per Ex.B1 stating that the complainant is aged more than 66 and the guideline value is only Rs.45000/- so she is not eligible to get the housing loan.

Point for consideration is

(i). Whether the bank committed any deficiency in service by not sanctioning loan as promised?

Discussion complainant that on assurance of the society officials he prepared documents and has spent Rs.20,000/- on the legal expectation of loan will be sanctioned to him. But to prove this fact of expenses, no document is produced, that he has spent more than Rs.20,000/-. So, the complainant failed to prove that he has spent more than Rs.20000/- for getting the loan. In this case there is no service charge for giving loan was received from the complainant. There is no privity of contract with regard to the loan transaction and no loan agreement or letter of promise produced by the complainant. The legal expectation of the complainant is not on the basis of any written assurance or document. Apart from that sanctioning or refusing loan is a prerogative right of the society and financial institutions. It is their discretionary power. The complainant did not plead any malafide intention against the bank in not sanctioning the loan to him. Hence there is no service offered by the service provider and no service hired by the complainant. Apart from those things the learned counsel submitted the following judgments

2006 2 CPC 562: 2006 1 CPJ 495: 2006 2 CPR 168 Mangayarkarasi

Vs. State Bank of India A.P.No.95/2001 dated: 13.12.2005,

2000 1 CPR 550 S.Tamilselvi Vs. Managing Director

O.P.No.178/1999

Sree Kanaka Durga Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd., VS. State Bank of India

O.P.No.264/1994 dated 22.05.2002,

1993 1 CPJ 22: 1992 2 CPR 395 State Bank of India & Another Vs.

A.Periayasamy A.P.No..225/1992 dated 06.07.1992,

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Ganesh