Press Trust of India | New Delhi May 30, 2014 Last Updated at 17:09 IST | Business Standard
NCDRC (National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission), the apex consumer forum, has dismissed a man’s plea seeking compensation from State Bank of India for delay in giving him loan, saying a bank has to make enquiries before sanctioning loan as now-a-days borrowers do not repay it smoothly.
A bench of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission rejected the appeal filed by Aurangabad resident Ganesh Madhavrao Maslekar against the state consumer commission’s order which had also dismissed the petition.
“It is well known, now-a-days that the borrowers do not pay back the loan amounts to the Banks, smoothly. For Bankers, it would be a matter of walking on eggs.
“The Bank has to make enquiries before sanctioning the loan. We do not find any flaw with the orders passed by the fora below,” the bench of Presiding Member Justice J M Malik and Member S M Kantikar, said.
The man had sought compensation claiming that the bank was deficient in service and committed unfair trade practice by publishing deceitful loan advertisement.
The commission also said that word “ideally”, used in the advertisement, could not be equated with the word “mandatory”.
“There was no contract between the parties. This pamphlet was just an ‘offer’,” it said.
The bench referred to an order of the national commission in which it was held that non-disbursement of loan does not amount to deficiency in service.
Maslekar filed the petition, claiming that Aurangabad branch of State Bank of India had issued an advertisement saying “if all the papers are in place, then the time taken to disburse the loan should be ideally 15 working days from time you apply for it, provided the property to be financed is clean…”
Attracted by the advertisement, Maslekar thought that he would get the home loan till June 30, 2010 and save the Service Tax and VAT and applied for loan on June 11, 2010.
However, the loan was sanctioned on July 9, 2010, and was disbursed on July 14, 2010, he claimed.
Thereafter, he filed complaint alleging that by publishing deceitful advertisement, and due to “negligence, inaction and passivity on the part of the bank, he had to pay a sum of Rs 41,200 as Service Tax and VAT which was introduced with effect from July 1, 2010.
The petition was filed against Assistant General Manager, State Bank Of India, Retails Assets Small and Medium Enterprises City Credit Cell, Aurangabad.
Source : http://goo.gl/dFUqSI