This is a discussion on Vijay Kishore Jain vs State Bank of India within the Judgments forums, part of the General Discussions category; BEFORE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CIRCUIT BENCH, RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR Appeal No. 1594/2002 Vijay Kishore Jain vs State Bank of ...
BEFORE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CIRCUIT BENCH, RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR
Appeal No. 1594/2002
Vijay Kishore Jain vs State Bank of India & Ors
15.07.2009
Before:
Mr. G.S. Hora, Presiding Member
Mr. Sikandar Punjabi, Member
Present:
Appellant appeared himself.
Mr. Anil Sharma, counsel for the Respondent
This appeal is against the order dated 22.11.2002 passed by the learned District Forum, Bharatpur whereby the complaint of the Complainant was dismissed.
The Complainant had applied for grant of loan to the State Bank of India, Deeg under Prime Minister Rozgar Yojana as he was selected under the plan by the District Industries Centre, Bharatpur. The Bank did not give loan to the Complainant and therefore alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Bank, the complaint was filed.
The Bank filed its reply. In para 3 of the reply, Bank has given sufficient reasons for not allowing the request of the Complainant for grant of loan. It was found during an inquiry that the Complainant neither owns any Ayurvedic medical store in village Wahaj nor does he reside there. It was also found that the Complainant had not acquired any professional education. It was also noticed that the village Wahaj has neither any Ayurvedic hospital nor any approved Vaidya dealing in ayuvedic medicines. Keeping all these facts in view, the Bank formed an opinion that in case loan is granted, its recovery will not be possible. We feel that the Bank has to make sure that the amount of loan is repaid by the borrower. In case, there is any doubt about it, the Bank can not be forced to grant loan. The Bank has to manage its finances by granting loans, and while sanctioning loan, it has to be seen that the loanee is solvent enough to repay it.
In this matter, the Bank was not sure about the recovery of loan and therefore if loan has not been sanctioned, no liability can be fastened on the Bank.
2
Consequently, we find no force in this appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Member Presiding Member
Hira Lal