DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MALDA, MALDA D.F.ORIGINAL CASE No.03/2008. Date of filing of the Case: 04.01.2008 Complainant | Opposite Parties | Abdul Aziz S/O. Aminul Islam Vill. Mothabari P.S. Kaliachak, Dist. Malda. W.B. | 1. | General Manager Allahabad Bank 2,Netaji subhas Road, Kollata,pin.700001,WB | 2. | Regional Manager Allahabad Bank Church Road, P.O. Siliguri, P.S. Siliguri, Dist.Darjeeling. W.B. | 3. | Branch Manager Allahabad Bank, Babla Branch, Vill. Mothabari, P.S. Kaliachak, Dist. Malda. W.B. |
Present | 1. | Shri A.K. Sinha, Member | 2. | Smt. Sumana Das, Member |
For the Petitioner : Prabir Kumar Kundu, Joynarayan Chowdhury, Advocates. For the O.P.s Archan Kumar Pramanik, Sourav Sarkar, Advocates. Order No. 09 Dt. 09.04.2008 The fact of the complainant’s case, in brief, is that the petitioner approached for bank loan under KVIC scheme to Branch Manager, Allahabad Bank, Babla Branch, Malda and being satisfied upon him, Bank selected him for KVIC training and consequently the petitioner underwent training from 22.3.2005 to 24.3.2005 at office of the Commissioner for Khadi and Village industries. Accordingly the loan was sanctioned on 6.12.2004 amounting Rs.6 lacs of which terms loan was 2 lacs and cash credit loan was 4 lacs. The petitioner kept two fixed deposits as security. The petitioner purchased machineries and produced proper voucher to O.P. The petitioner got no service from the Bank. Moreover petitioner gave two blank cheques amounting to Rs.80,000/- and Rs.40,000/- which were misappropriated later on O.P. did not release 25% subsidy and suddenly snap the transaction and ultimately on 11.10.2007 the petitioner was informed that the loan was not sanctioned under KVIC scheme. Being deprived from his legitimate amount and misguided by the O.P., the petitioner has filed this case praying reliefs as per plaint. O.P. Nos. 1, 2, 3 contest the case by filing a joint written version denying therein all material allegations contending further that the loan sanctioned by the Bank was not sanctioned under KVIC scheme. The petitioner misused the loan and diverted the funds into other business and as a result the petitioner was not allowed to operate the said account for the time being. O.Ps. are not the competent authority to sanction the subsidy amount and hence the prayer is for dismissal of petitioner of complaint with cost. Following points appear to be just for effective disposal of the case 1. Whether the service rendered by the O.P. is deficient? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for? DECISION WITH REASONS Point No.1. The pertinent question whether the service of the O.P. suffers from deficiency needs to be examined vis. a vis. the petitioner contention is whether the refusal to consider the loan in question under KVIC scheme constitute deficiency of service within the meaning of that expression under C.P. Act. Incidental to such an examination there is a requirement to see whether the O.P. had entered into the realm of a concluded contract with the complainant to finance the scheme under KVIC and if so whether the principle of promissory estoppel ensures to the benefit of the complainant. The doctrine of promissory estoppel emerges when there is a clear and unequivocal promise which is intended to create legal relation to arise in future, knowing or intending that it would acted upon by the party making such promise. The promise would be binding on the party making it and he would not be entitled to go back on it. In the instant case we find that complainant has not placed any material on record to show that the O.P. had undertaken any promise to treat the loan sanctioned under KVIC scheme. On scrutiny of the statement of P.W. – 1 it appears that he placed necessary documents to the O.P. No.3 to produce loan under KVIC scheme but neither he has produce any document nor adduce any other evidence in support of his statement. It is seen from Ext.1 that in the column project-cost total Rs.66,0000/- in two heads is shown, in the column sanction amount with date - Rs.6,00,000/- dated 6.12.2004 has been scribed. Ext.1 also discloses that the petitioner was sponsored for training by O.P. No.3 under his signature on 7.3.2005. Ext.2 is the original certificate of the commissioner for Khadi and Village Industries and enterprise development institute in the name of the petitioner who imparted training from 22nd March to 24th March 2005 held at Malda. But according to column 8 of Ext.1 amount of 1st release with date - Rs.50,000/- dated 25.1.2005 was given effect which is also corroborated from the statement of O.P.W. – 1, the Branch Manager Babla Branch, of Allahabad Bank. in the cross examination the P.W. – 1 stated that loan should not be sanctioned after undergoing training but could not produce any document whatsoever in support of his claim. He also stated in his examination in chief that he was aware that he was given sanction of Rs.2,00,000/- as term loan and Rs.40,0000/- as C.C. loan but he failed to produce the sanctioned letter to establish the fact that such loan was issued under KVIC scheme and of Rs.6,00,000/- in all. In the contrary, from Ext.A filed by O.Ps. which is the intimation letter dated 6.12.2004 to the petitioner under seal & signature of O.P. No.3, it appears that sanction of a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- with reference to the application of the petitioner for the purpose of making readymade garments against hypothecation of stocks and book debts on the terms & conditions scribed in the letter was issued. The O.P.W. – 1 has not been shakned on question of issue of the sanction of the loan. No material even has been put forwarded showing any whisper for not considering the sanctioned loan by the O.P. under KVIC. Moreover, the petitioner has admitted as P.W. – 1 that he never asked for payment of subsidy amount as is available in case of loan under KVIC. Much have been stated against issue of not treating the loan under KVIC scheme but less has been discussed about the compliance of the terms and condition with regard to the loan sanctioned. Ext.6 filed by the petitioner which reflects the true state of attitude manner of dealing of borrower and manner of dealings of the borrower/complainant with O.P. (Bank). It appears from Ext.6 that no deposit in both accounts, the EMI of term loan was Rs.4500/- but the deposit is nil since first withdrawal. As per visit report dated 18.3.2005 (Ext.C) the then Manager has found stock of cloth valued only of Rs.50,000/- although he had withdrawn Rs.2,40,000/- from cash credit account as reflected in Ext.5. No related documents could be shown to establish that goods purchased were on transits. The visit report of Branch Manager (O.P.NO.3) marked Ext.D disclosed that borrower/petitioner did not purchase machinery as per the bill submitted to the O.P. / Bank and it was observed that the petitioner did not utilize the working capital fund for the purpose for which the loan was given and he was advised to return the entire working capital fund to the bank to avoid legal action against him. It also appears from Ext.6 which was sent to the petitioner in reply to his letter dated 16.7.07 (Ext.4) that visit of his unit on 30.8.07 accompanied by Sri. N.G. Biswas (Chief Manager) it was found only the sewing machines (cost hardly Rs.50,000/-) but no other stock available. He was also advised either to continue transaction as per terms and conditions or to close the said accounts. No step appears to have been taken by the petitioner on receipt of Ext.6 except filing of the petition of complaint in the instant case. In the cross examination the petitioner has admitted that for a period of two years he has not made any transaction with the bank regarding loan matter and also admitted that Bank Manager inspected the spot. No document has been filed to show that the petitioner have taken tenancy for 5000 sq.ft to run his business and also admitted that no document has been filed to show that there is any space of 5000 sq.ft in his paternal resident. On the allegation of issuing two blank cheques to O.P. valued Rs.80,000/- and Rs.40,000/- against cheque No.43137 and 431378 dated 9.3.2005 the O.P., have denied the receipt of any blank cheque. It appears on scrutiny of Ext.5 that Rs.40,000/- was shown to have been received in cash vide CC account No.22151 against cheque No.431378 dated 14.3.2005 and Rs.80,000/- was shown transferred from the account on 9.3.05. No document has been filed to show his subsequent objection before higher authority of O.P. No.3 and asking for relief. Financial institution held to have every right to protect their interest by taking conscious decision and which the Bank did in the present case. In the light of this discussion and having given our anxious though over the matter this Forum is of opinion that the petitioner has no justifiable ground to contend that the O.P.s have perpetrated of deficiency of service within the meaning of the expression under C.P. Act. This point is thus disposed of in the negative. Point No.2 In view of the matter discussed above the petition of complaint is liable to be dismissed. Proper fees have been paid. Hence, ordered, that Malda D.F. Case No.03/2008 stands dismissed against all the O.Ps. on contest. In the peculiar circumstances there will be no order as to the cost. Let the copy of order be given to both parties free of cost at once. Sd/- Sd/- Sumana Das A. K. Sinha Member Member D.C.D.R.F., Malda. D.C.D.R.F., Malda. |
