
Goutam Kundu filed a consumer case on 03 Oct 2023 against The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Boga Branch in the Bankura Consumer Court. The case no is CC/41/2019 and the judgment uploaded on 09 Oct 2023.
IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANKURA
Consumer Complaint No. 41/2019
Date of Filing: 22-07-2019
Before:
1. Samiran Dutta Ld. President.
2. Rina Mukherjee Ld. Member.
3. Siddhartha Sankar Bhui Ld. Member.
For the Complainant: Self
For the O.P. : Ld. Advocate Prasun Kumar Bandyopadhyay
Complainant
Goutam Kundu, Son of Late Aloke Kundu
Present Address :- At Pranabananda Pally, P.O. Kenduadihi, P.S. + Dist. – Bankura, Pin – 722102, Mob. 9932215389.
Permanent Address : vill. – Kurchibaid, P.O. – Jorda, P.S. - Indpur, Dist. – Bankura, Pin – 722173.
Opposite Party
The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Boga Branch, P.O. – Boga, P.S. Indpur, Dist. – Bankura, Pin – 722136, Mob. No.8001195451.
FINAL ORDER / JUDGEMENT
Order No.30
Dated:03-10-2023
Both parties file hazira through advocate.
The case is fixed for argument.
After hearing argument from both sides the Commission proceeds to dispose of the case as hereunder:-
The Complainant’s case is that he was favoured with PMEGP loan during F.Y. 2013-14 for Fish Fed Manufacturing Unit to be disbursed through O.P./Bank on certain terms and condition. The O.P./Bank has already disbursed Rs.3 Lakh to the loan account of the Complainant No. being 34529546015 out of the sanctioned loan of Rs.25 Lakh of which Govt. subsidy is Rs.8,75,000/- and Complainant’s own contribution is Rs.1,25,000/- and Bank loan is Rs.15 Lakh but the Complainant needs more money to complete the construction work for the project but the O.P./ Bank has deliberately failed to fulfill their part of contract and has thereby frustrated the project of the Complainant. Hence this case.
O.P. contested the case by filing a written version contending inter alia that estimated cost of construction work is Rs.4 Lakh as per terms and condition of the project and the O.P./Bank has already disbursed Rs.3 Lakh for the same and the Complainant is not entitled to get further fund from the O.P./Bank towards the construction purpose as the Complainant has deviated from the terms and contracts of the project by exceeding the cost of construction.
Contd……p/2
Page: 2
-: Decision with reasons: -
Having regard to the facts of the case, submission, contention and documents on record on both sides the Commission finds that the project started during the F.Y. 2013-14 and till date the Complainant has not paid his own contribution and also EMI of Rs.37,380/- commencing from July, 2015 as is evident from the terms and condition of the loan account though the Bank has already disbursed Rs.3 Lakh in favour of the Complainant. The O.P./Bank is no more interested to proceed with the project by disbursement of any further fund as the Complainant has already exceeded the construction cost beyond Rs.4 Lakh as per inspection report of the O.P./Bank dated:08/11/2016.
It is a Govt. scheme loan and the Complainant must abide by the terms and condition and rules and regulation of the loan account and the O.P. / Bank cannot act beyond the terms and condition of the loan account by disbursement of any further fund to the Complainant as claimed from time to time. The case is devoid of merit.
Hence it is ordered……..
That the case be and the same is dismissed on contest but without cost.
Both parties be supplied copy of this Judgement free of cost.
____________________ _________________ _________________
HON’BLE PRESIDENT HON’BLE MEMBER HON’BLE MEMBER
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.