CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Vs. PUSHPA LATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present revision petition, there is challenge to order dated 18th October, 2006 passed State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (For Short 'State Commission').

(2.) Case of Respondent/complainant is that petitioner-bank through their scheme having given advertisement in various newspaper from time to time, invited people at large to make deposit with their banker i. e. National Housing Bank, a scheme launched by them to grant loan for buying residential premises in Delhi. They further assured that depositors/members would be entitled to avail loan in various categories for their housing project. House loan account scheme is however, open to any one not owning a house and is not restricted to those seeking the assistance of public agencies. In other words, members can seek dwelling accommodation through any source or by private negotiations and avail of the loan facility under this scheme. Thus, Respondent believing their advertisement and in view of the model scheme, started depositing Rs. 1,000/- per month in the home loan account w. e. f. 01-09-1989 vide her home loan account No. D. 2, which matured on 1-09-1994. Though Respondent had deposited a total sum of Rs. 83,000/- upto 31-07-1996, she wrote many letters to the petitioner to grant her loan for purchasing a house in Delhi, but petitioner did not grant any loan under one pretext or the other. As such, respondent has been deprived of her legal rights. It is further alleged that petitioner has laid down in the scheme that on completion of 5 years, a depositor can avail of home loan for acquiring a New house/flat from any source the account holder likes and the account holder is not tied to any specific agency.

(3.) Respondent wrote various letters dated 29-07-1993, 19-10-1994, 13-05-1996 and 10-11-1994 and also served legal notice dated 31-01-1996, requesting the petitioner to grant her a loan of Rs. 3,00,000/-, so that she may buy a house in Delhi and also enclosed advertisement of some builders like DLF and Ansals, but petitioner did not grant any such loan as was envisaged but sent a letter dated 20-02-1996 having acknowledged the receipt of letter of her counsel.