Kerala

Idukki

CC/111/2016

Mr.Sasi V L - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager SBT - Opp.Party(s)

Adv.Sibi Thomas

30 May 2019

ORDER

DATE OF FILING :30/03/2016

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 30^th day of May 2019

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT.ASAMOL P. MEMBER

CC NO. 111/2016

Between

Complainant : Sasi V.L.,

Valiyaveettil House,

Rajakumari P.O.,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: Sibi Thomas)

And

Opposite Party : The Manager,

State Bank of Travancore,

Rajakumari Branch,

Rajakumari North P.O.,

Idukki – 685 619.

(By Adv: Babichen V.George)

O R D E R

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

 

The case of the complainant is that,

 

Complainant was the customer of opposite party bank and he availed two loans from this bank and paying its instalments regularly. Complainant is conducting cardamom plantation in 12 acres of land. Complainant got sanction from the industries office for starting a cardamom dryer unit on the basis of a project report. For establishing the dryer unit total cost is estimated as 8 lakhs rupees. For this purpose the industries department recommended the opposite party bank to sanction the above estimated amount in favour of the complainant. As per this scheme the government allows 40% as subsidy in the total estimate. Complainant collected all relevant records and project reports for sanctioning this loan by spending Rs.40,000/- as directed by the opposite party bank. While causing delay in sanctioning the loan, the complainant approached the higher authority of opposite party bank, and they said no objection to the opposite party bank in sanctioning this loan. But the manager and field officer of the opposite party bank expressed their unwillingness in sanctioning this loan. If the opposite party bank intimated

(Cont.....2)

-2-

 

this matter in an early stage, the complainant can approached other banks for this purpose. On the firm belief of sanctioning this loans, complainant borrowed some amount from some private agencies for a very high rate of interest and invested it for their dryer units. Due to the act of the opposite party, complainant forced to borrow amount from others and it amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party bank. Against this the complainant filed this petition for allowing the relief such as to direct the opposite party to sanction the above said loan and further direct them to pay Rs.3,20,000/- being the 40% subsidy of the 8 Lakhs rupees along with compensation and cost.

 

Per contra version filed on behalf of the opposite party pleaded that complainant has no cause of action to file this complaint and complainant is bad for non jointer of necessary party ie, the allegation is against the State Bank of India, but complainant arrayed the Manager only as the opposite party and SBI is not arrayed as the opposite party in the complaint. It is further pleaded that opposite party is only a staff of the State Bank of India. Complainant is the account holder and already availed two loans from this branch. But he is not proper in paying the loan instalments. Opposite party admitted that complainant approached them for sanctioning Rs.8 Lakhs in PMRY scheme but the opposite party denied the allegation that the opposite party consented to sanction the loans and the complainant spent Rs.40,000/- for collecting the materials as demanded by the opposite party.

 

Opposite party further contented that without verifying the application and project report and without conducting proper enquiry about the project, opposite party cannot say whether this loan is allowable or not, opposite party is not liable for the money borrowed by the complainant for high rate of interest.

 

Opposite party further contented that, the actual fact behind the non-sanctioning of the loan was that, while the opposite party conducted proper enquiry about the project, they convinced that, this project is not viable and there is no possibility to run the project in profit. Opposite party further stated that on enquiry they further convinced that the same nature of units which functions in the same area are running in loss. More over on conducting

(Cont.....3)

-3-

inspection in the proposed unit, opposite party realised that this unit not fit for giving continues job for 8 peoples as per the norms of PMRY scheme.

 

Opposite party further pleaded that, as per rule, the subsidy is sanctioning after the smooth functioning of the project for three years. More over if the subsidy is sanctioned by the government, the bank will keep it in a suspense account and if the bank convinced that, the project is moving smoothly for three years, then only they will adjust this amount to the loan account. So, no question of subsidy arises herein in a non sanctioned loan.

 

Opposite party further pleaded that, the granting of loan is not a right of the complainant. It is the discretion of the bank. The bank can grant loan depend upon the viability and profitability of a project. In this case, the matter of non- sanctioning of the loan was duly communicated by the opposite party to the State Director KVIC, Thiruvananthapuram. Against the act of the opposite party, complainant approached the banking ombudsman and the ombudsman decided the matter in favour of the opposite party bank, opposite party bank is acted as directed by the higher authorities. Opposite party is having no authority to sanction without permission of the higher authority. Matter being so, no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice can be attributed against the opposite party in this matter.

 

Evidence adduced by the complainant by way of proof affidavit and documents. Complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext.P1 to Ext.P6 were marked. Ext.P1(s) are the copy of loan application and project report, Ext.P2 is the copy of quotation from power generator set, Ext.P3 to Ext.P6 are the copy of certificate of Additional Tahasildar, Udumbanchola, copy of caste certificate, copy of Acknowledgement of industries department and notice from Banking Ombudsman respectively.

 

From the defence side one Mr.V.G.Anantha Sivan, Present Manager, SBI, Rajakumari was examined as DW1 and Ext.R1 to Ext.R10 were marked. Ext.R1 is the copy of letter from the KVIC, Ext.R2 is the report of the opposite party bank, Ext.R3 is the letter from the Regional office of opposite party bank, Ext.R4 is the copy of loan application return letter, Ext.R5 is the copy of report submitted by the opposite party before their AGM, Ext.R6 is the copy of letter issued by the opposite party bank to the Director, KVIC dated 28/12/15,

(Cont.....4)

-4-

Ext.R7 is the copy of report submitted before the Ombudsman, Ext.R8 and Ext.R9 are the statement of accounts of the loan of the complainant with this bank, Ext.R10 is the order from the banking Ombudsman, it is marked after the examination of DW1.

 

Heard both sides,

 

The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?

 

The Point:- We have heard the learned counsels appearing for both parties and have also perused entire records carefully.

 

It is an admitted fact that the complainant approached the Industries department and submitted a project and estimate for establishing a cardamom processing unit. As per the estimate total investment for this unit is Rs.8 Lakhs. For this purpose complainant submitted the relevant documents such as caste certificate, possession certificate, Tax receipt, Sanctioned letter from the Tahasildar etc. After inspection for considering the project, the industries officer forwarded this project proposal to the opposite party manager, and for considering it under Prime Minister Employment Generation Programmes (PMEGP). On getting the proposal, the opposite party bank conducted enquiry in this matter and thereafter they reported this matter to their higher authority, the AGM, stating that same type of unit is already available near to the proposed project, which is not functioning regularly for want of sufficient cardamom. The project does not seems to generate regular employment for 8 persons as per the scheme.

 

On perusing Ext.R1 policies guidelines of PMEGP scheme, we came to know that, clause (d) of this guidelines says that, “the per capital investment in terms of fact time employment, ie, the capital expenditure per artesian should not exceed Rs. 1 Lakh and this the above project must provide employment for 8 persons”. As per the enquiry report of opposite party bank, this project is not viable and not profitable. No evidence is produced by the complainant to convince the Forum that the present unit is which is working the same are is running successfully with profit. As per records the matter of rejection of loan

(Cont.....5)

-5-

 

proposal was duly intimated by the bank to the State Director, KVIC, through Ext.R6 letter dated 28/12/15.

 

The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the opposite party bank delayed the matter, and the matter of dismissal of loan proposal was not intimated him, so that under the firm belief that the loan will be sanctioned, the complainant happened to invest a huge amount, borrowed from outside. It caused due to the non- intimation of the rejection of loan application by the opposite party bank. In this aspect even though the complainant specifically stated that he invested a huge amount and installed a processing unit, no evidence is produced before the Forum to substantiate his statement either orally or documentary.

 

The next point argued by the learned counsel that the complainant spent an amount of Rs.40,000/- to collecting all the documents which is demanded by the opposite party. Here it is an admitted fact that the complainant created a project report and estimate with the aid of some experts and collected the relevant records for sanctioning the proposed project. All these records are obtained from various government agencies only for submitting the project to before the KVIC. As per records it is seen that, after keen perusal of this documents, the KVIC department forwarded these file to the opposite party bank for considering his proposal. Hence it is very clear that the complainant obtained or created all these records as per the direction of KVIC department and not as demanded by the opposite party bank as alleged.

 

Then regarding the question of 40% subsidy. In this matter, Forum found that the clarification regarding the subsidy specifically stated by the opposite party in their version is sufficient. It is very clear that no question of subsidy is arises in a non- sanctioned loan. More over if the subsidy is granted by the Government in a sanctioned loan, it will be kept in the suspense account of the bank, and by observing the three years functioning of the unit, and if the bank is convinced that, the unit is functioning successfully and is profitable, the bank will adjust the subsidy amount in the loan account. Demanding 40% subsidy by the complainant in this case cannot be entertained and having no legal footing.

 

(Cont.....6)

 

-6-

 

In view of the above findings Forum is of a considered view that as stated by the opposite party in their version, loan is not a right and it is the discretion of the bank depending upon the nature of business and the source of repayment. Hence the complainant miserably failed to convince the Forum that he can run the business by providing regular employment to 8 persons and in a profitable manner.

 

Under the above circumstances, the Forum find no merits in this complaint and hence complaint dismissed. No order to costs.

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of May, 2019.

 

Sd/-

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT.ASAMOL P. (MEMBER)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Cont.....7)

 

-7-

 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1 - V.L.Sasi

On the side of the Opposite Party :

DW1 - Shri.V.G.Anantha Sivan

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1(s) - The copy of loan application and project report

Ext.P2 - The copy of quotation from power generator set

Ext.P3 - The copy of certificate of Additional Tahasildar, Udumbanchola

Ext.P4 - Copy of caste certificate

Ext.P5 - Copy of Acknowledgement of industries department

Ext.P6 - Notice from Banking Ombudsman

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1 -The copy of letter from the KVIC

Ext.R2 -The report of the opposite party bank

Ext.R3 -The letter from the Regional office of opposite party bank

Ext.R4 -The copy of loan application return letter

Ext.R5 -The copy of report submitted by the opposite party before their AGM

Ext.R6 -The copy of letter issued by the opposite party bank to the Director,

KVIC dated 28/12/15

Ext.R7 -The copy of report submitted before the Ombudsman

Ext.R8- The statement of accounts of the loan of the complainant

with this bank

Ext.R9-The statement of accounts of the loan of the complainant

with this bank

Ext.R10-The order from the banking Ombudsman

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT