Complaint Case No.53/2009

Date of Institution 14-1-2009

Date of Decision 3-12-2009
Amar Singh son of Sh. Bala Singh resident of village Mehar Post Office Tandu , Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P.

…Complainant
V/S

1. Branch Manager, Himachal Gramin Bank Drang , Branch Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P.

2. District Manager, The SC/ST Development Corporation Office 10/10/ Bhagwahan Muhalla, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P.
…..Opposite parties

For the complainant Sh. Vishal Thakur , Advocate

For the opposite partyNo.1 Sh. Naresh Sharma , Advocate

For the opposite party No.2 Sh.G.S. Thakur , Advocate


Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

ORDER.
This order shall dispose of a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

( hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) instituted by the complainant against the opposite parties .The case of the complainant is that he applied to the opposite party No.1 on 3-1-2006 under “ Swarojgar Credit Card ”scheme for tailoring Unit work and he was granted loan in the sum of Rs.15,000/- @ 9.5 % per annum and loan account number allotted was 1610. The complainant averred that he had paid the instalments to the Bank. Further case of the complainant is that in order to expand the work of tailoring business, he also applied for loan on 5-11-2006 to District Manager ST Development Corporation Office Mandi i.e. opposite party No.2 who sought a “No Objections Certificate ” from the opposite party No.1 which was issued by the opposite party No.1 stating that they had no objection if the loan was granted with margin money and subsidy may be provided to the subject as per eligibility and loan of Rs.35,000/- was accepted by the opposite party No.2 with the margin money of Rs.8750/- and subsidy of Rs.5000/- being released to the opposite party No.1. That the opposite party No.2 has released the subsidy in favour of the opposite party No.1 and the same had been adjusted in previous account No.1610 on 26-4-2007 without his consent and illegally applied the said subsidy amount , margin money released by the opposite party No.2 causing set back to his business .The complainant alleged that there is gross deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties . The complainant further averred that he applied under RTI Act on 23-7-2008 regarding sanction of loan or amount of subsidy money or proceed money released of which date or deposited in the account No.1610 of the complainant but the opposite party No.2 had not cared to supply the same . The complainant averred that he went to the office of the opposite parties regarding the loan of Rs.35,000/- but they did not care at all and even not told about anything regarding the loan of Rs.35,000/- whose subsidy money was Rs.5000/- already sanctioned and opposite party No.1 without the consent of the complainant adjusted the same in previous loan account No.1610 which act on the part of the opposite parties is highly wrong , and unfair trade practice .On these facts , the complainant has sought a direction to the opposite party No.1 to disburse the loan of Rs.35,000/-, to pay Rs.15000/- as damages on account of loss of business alongwith interest . Apart from this Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses has also been claimed

2 The opposite party No.1 filed reply and averred that the complainant had not deposited the instalments regularly . It has further been averred that regarding the loan of the complainant, certain certificate was sought by the opposite party No.2 from the opposite party No.1 and vide letter dated 15-2-2007 addressed to the opposite party No.2 , the opposite party No.1 has intimated that the complainant has already taken a loan for a tailoring unit and the amount of loan had been advanced on 20-1-2006 and further the opposite party No.1 had advised to give financial assistance in the shape of margin money/ subsidy as per his eligibility if available . It has further been averred that the complainant was already a loanee and the question of issuance of “No objection certificate” to him did not arise and that no person can take two loans under one scheme for the same unit . It has been admitted that the opposite party No.2 had sanctioned the case of the complainant and send the cheque of margin money and subsidy of Rs.5000/- but no recommendation regarding the loan was granted and the bank adjusted the subsidy of Rs.5000/- in the earlier loan account . The opposite party No.1 further averred that the complainant is a chronic defaulter and still had to pay balance amount to the Bank. The opposite party No.1 further contended that the complainant had again applied for the loan under the same scheme and for the same unit through the opposite party No.2 without disclosing the fact that he had earlier taken loan from the bank on the same unit . Rest of the contents of the complaint have been denied being wrong.

3. The opposite party No.2 filed reply and resisted the complaint by raising preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable , that the complaint is barred by limitation and is liable to be dismissed with costs in limine . On merits . the opposite party No.2 had admitted that on 5-11-2006, the complainant had applied for loan and it had sent the application to the opposite party No.1 for disbursing the loan amount to the complainant and the opposite party No.2 has given no objection for the loan and paid Rs.5000/- as subsidy vide cheque No.122895 dated 27-2-2007 and said money of Rs.8750/- vide cheque No.122894 dated 27-2-2007 had been sent for deposit through letter No.5514 dated 28-2-2007 in the loan application forwarded on 24-11-2006 to the opposite party No.1.. The opposite party No.2 had prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua it .



3. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record of the case . The perusal of the record shows that a loan in the sum of Rs.15,000/- was sanctioned in favour of the complainant by the opposite party No.1 under “Swarojgar Credit Card” scheme for tailoring unit and thereafter the complainant further applied for loan on 5-11-2006 to the opposite party No.2. However, the opposite party No.1 intimated to the opposite party No.2 vide letter dated 11-2-2007 that the complainant has already taken a loan for tailoring Unit on 20-1-2006 under general scheme and it has further been mentioned in the said letter that financial assistance in the shape of margin money/ subsidy be provided to the complainant as per eligibility. The opposite party No.2 had sent Rs.5000/- as subsidy which amount was adjusted by the opposite party ( Bank) in the loan account of the complainant bearing No.1610 against entry dated 26-4-2007 as per the statement of accounts Annexure-2. The case of the opposite party No.1 is that the complainant is a chronic defaulter and he still had to pay the balance amount to the bank and the complainant had applied for loan under the same scheme for the same unit through the opposite party No.2, without disclosing the fact that he had earlier taken loan from the bank on the same unit and the complaint is not eligible to avail second loan as no person can take two loans under one scheme for the same unit. This fact has not been denied by the complainant by way of filing any rejoinder or filing any documentary evidence to the contrary .In our opinion, it was incumbent upon the complainant to prove and establish that he was entitled to avail two loans under one scheme for the same unit through the opposite party No.2. However, no evidence has been adduced by the complainant in this respect. The complainant ought to have filed details of the Scheme floated by the opposite parties under which he was entitled to avail loan but nothing has been filed in this respect. Moreover, according to the opposite party No.1, the complainant is a chronic defaulter and he still had to pay balance amount to the Bank as per the statement of accounts Annexure -2. Therefore, it cannot be said that the opposite party No.1 had been deficient in providing service to the complainant . It is settled law that granting or refusing loan is at the discretion of the Banks based upon their judgment on various factors and the failure to provide financial assistance is not a deficiency in service. In M/S Special Machines Karnal vs Punjab National Bank 1(1991) CPJ-78( NC) the Hon’ble National Commission had held in para No.21 as under:-

“………………………………………………………………We have also held in quite a few cases that complaints by borrowers from Banks against failure to provide adequate financing facility to an industry or business cannot form the subject matter of adjudication under the Act since in the matter of grant or withholding of further advances and insisting on margin money etc. the Banks have to exercise their discretion and act in accordance with their best judgment after taking into account various relevant factors and hence mere failure to provide financial facility or assistance cannot be said to be constitute “deficiency in service” as defined in section 2(1)(g) of the Act. We see no reason to deviate from the aforesaid view which we have already taken in similar matters.”



5. In the case titled Vimal Chander Grover vs Bank of India II(1996) CPJ-159(NC) the Hon’ble National Commission had held in para 16 as under:-



“………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………

This commission has held that complaints by borrowers from Banks against failure to provide adequate facilities to an industry or business cannot form the subject matter of adjudication under the Act since in the matter of grant or withholding of further advances and insisting on margin money etc. The Banks have to exercise their discretion and act in accordance with their best judgment after taking into account various relevant factors and hence mere failure to provide financial facility or assistance cannot be said to constitute deficiency in service as defined in section 2 (1) (g) of the Act.”

6 Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission ,we have no hesitation to conclude that the opposite parties are not guilty of any deficiency in service . Hence the complaint is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

7 Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per Rules.

8 File, after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.