Skip to main content

Failure to inform about rejection of loan application deficiency of service

The STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA,MUMBAI in Bank Of Baroda vs Mr. Jayprakash R. Kushwaha & Ors, has held that failure to inform an applicant about rejection of his loan application constitutes deficiency of service on the part of the Bank.

The Bench comprising Justice A.P. Bhangale (President) and Mr. D.R. Shirasao (Judicial Member) thereby confirmed the order of the Thane District Forum, awarding  Rs. 1 lakh as compensation and Rs. 10,000 as costs for deficiency in service.

“We are of the opinion that as and when Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 had come to know that title of Opposite Party No.3 is not clear and letter of transfer of flat given to them by the complainant is false and fabricated it was incumbent on Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 to inform this fact to the complainant… Under such circumstances, we are of the opinion that there was deficiency in service given by the Opposite Party. Nos.1 and 2 to the complainant and hence complainant is entitled to get
compensation from Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 along with costs of litigation,” the Bench observed.

The Court was hearing an Appeal filed by Bank of Baroda, challenging a direction to pay compensation to one Mr. Jayprakash Kushwaha, for the Bank’s failure to inform him about the rejection of his loan application.

Mr. Kushwaha had approached the Bank for a housing loan, and had made the down payment for purchase of the flat on the assurance that the loan would be granted. The loan, however, did not materialize, even after the society had issued an NOC for the sale of the flat and had also transferred the share certificate to him.

On inquiry, he was told that his loan application file was missing. Mr. Kushwaha had then approached the Thane District Forum, seeking a direction to release the loan amount, as well as demanding compensation and costs.

The Bank had, before the State Commission, contended that the loan application was rejected because the society’s NOC was false and fabricated since it did not bear the signature of its President or Secretary. The Bank had, further, alleged that the seller did not have a clear title to sell the flat.

The District Forum had, however, ruled that there existed a deficiency in service on the part of the Bank, directing it to reconsider the loan application and intimate its decision within 30 days. The Bank had now challenged this decision before the State 1.5K Commission, refuting the claim of deficiency in service.

Upholding the decision of the District Forum, the State Commission, however, noted that in the absence of any dispute by the Society, the allegation about the society’s NOC being fabricated was not acceptable. It further ruled that the bank had a duty to communicate its decision along with the reason for rejection of the loan application, irrespective of the reason for such rejection. Failure to do so, it held, would amount to deficiency in service, for which the bank would be liable to pay compensation.


Popular posts from this blog

MACT - Permanent disability - calculate - compensation - Supreme Court - Part 2

1) C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376
2) R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551
3) Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467
4) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298
5) Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567)

5.The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i)Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii)Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising :
(a)Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b)Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii)Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages)
(iv)Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v)Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects…

Delay - condon - limitation

The proof by sufficient cause is a condition precedent for exercise of the extraordinary restriction vested in the court. What counts is not the length of the delay but the sufficiency of the cause and shortness of the delay is one of the circumstances to be taken into account in using the discretion.

Supreme Court of India
State Of Nagaland vs Lipok Ao & Ors on 1 April, 2005
Author: A Pasayat
Bench: Arijit Pasayat, S.H. Kapadia
           CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.)  484 of 2005

State of Nagaland

Lipok AO & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/04/2005


J U D G M E N T (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) 4612 of 2003 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

Leave granted.

The State of Nagaland questions correctness of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench refusing to condone the delay by rejecting the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (in short the 'Limitation Act') and conseque…

Passport - DRT - power to impound - High Court

1) Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D.Ramarathnam. Asst. Passport Officer, 1967 (3) SCR 52
2) Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 (1) SCC 248
3) Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India Ltd. v. Grapco Industries Ltd., (1994) 4 SCC 710
4) Suresh Nanda v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2008 (3) SCC 674
5) Damji Valaji Shah & another Vs. L.I.C. of India & others [AIR 1966 SC 135]
6) Gobind Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar & others [1999 (7) SCC 76]
7) Belsund Sugar Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and others [AIR 1999 SC 3125]
8) Sanjeev R.Apte v. I.F.C.I. Ltd., and others, 2008 (154) DLT 77
9) Smt.Annai Jayabharathi v. The Debt Recovery Tribunal & Anr., CDJ 2005 Ker HC 171
10) Allahabad Bank v. Radhakrishna Maity, AIR 1999 SC 3426
11) Ramalinga v. Radha, 2011 (4) CTC 481
12) Sinnaswami Chettiar v. Aligi Goundan and others, AIR 1924 Madras 893 (OVERRULED)
13) Nallagatti Goundan v. Ramana Gounda and others, AIR 1925 Madras 170
14) Income Tax Officer v. M.K.Mohammad…