PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer Complaint No.- 216/2023

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member

Kishore Chandra Mohapatra,

S/O-Late Khali Mahapatra,

At-Keutibahal, PO/Ps-Charmal,

Dist-Sambalpur, Odisha-768106, Odisha.                         ………........Complainant

-Vrs.-

1. Regional Manager, Central Bank of India,

Budharaja Road, Professor Colony, Po-Budharaja,

City/Dist-Sambalpur-768004, Odisha.

2. Branch Manager, Central Bank of India,

Rairakhol Branch, Brundaban Vihar, Po-Rairakhol,

Dist-Sambalpur-768106, Odisha.                            ..................Opp.Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant           :- Sri. Prem Prakash Panigrahi, Adv.
2. For the O.P.s                       :- Sri. Asis Kumar Pattanaik & Associated

Date of Filing:30.11.2023,  Date of Hearing :02.04.2024  Date of Judgement : 06.05.2024

Presented by Sri Sadananda Tripathy, Member.

1. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant filed the case for deficiency in service in banking service about inaction and unexplained silence on loan application for prolonged period exceeding 2 years which is apparent from BM, CBI letter issued to the loan applicant. In this letter, the BM acknowledges the fact that Complainant’s loan proposal was sent for approval to its Regional office, Sambalpur. In this letter the BM has been seeking suggestion and guidance from RM for financing of layer farming project, the proposal being above One crore rupees. It was under a special scheme under MKUY approved by its own legal scrutiny report dt. 17.11.2020 by its empanelled counsel. It has a subsidy benefit of Rs. 50 lakhs for the Complainant. The subsidy is given to the poultry farmer by Government of India through NABARD. It was coming under agricultural activities sponsored by State Government on 17.02.2020, Apicol by issuing ‘go ahead letter’. The subsidy needs to be availed in conformity with its time schedule as per the policy under which the scheme spelt out the deadline as 21.08.2022 in the ‘Go Ahead’ letter issued by Dept. of Agriculture & Farmer empowerment through District Nodal Officer, Sambalpur. In spite of the repeated direction of the Hon’ble High Court of Odisha dt. 05.09.2022 in WP © 6384 of 2021 and 22.06.2023 in WP © 6384 of 2021 thereby depriving him of the benefit of the Scheme, sustenance, employment and livelihood. This deprivation of subsidy of Rs. 50 lakhs is a straight loss to the farmer Complainant which are liable to recompensate. The OPs who are PSU Banks and empanelled with G.O.O under the MKUY Scheme, remained indifferent and acted arbitrarily. They did not consider or sanctioned or disburse the loan thereby thrusting untold miseries on the Complainant. There has been unexplained silence on the part of the Bank in spite of the approval of the government and APICOL in conformity with the scheme/policy of the Government. The above narration of events depicts the arbitrary action of the OPs in the matter of financing the approved and evaluated project report of the applicant borrower farmer. In fact the PSU Bank have acted as imperium in imperio.  The present case is not filed for sanction of loan by the OPs. The case is filed for unexplained silence, inertia of the OPs for which the Complainant has been deprived of subsidy from government as can be seen from prayer of the Complaint Petition, which is straight financial loss apart from deprivation of earning and his sustenance.
2. The O.P submitted that the Complainant cannot be considered as a consumer since he has applied for loan for commercial purpose and the complaint petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. The OP No. 2 vide its letter dtd. 13.01.2023 addressed to the Complainant had asked him to submit the necessary documents for security within seven days to consider his application for sanction of loan. The OP No. 2 has in clear terms mentioned that as per the loan policy of Central Bank of India for poultry loans, for the loans above 10 lakhs Collateral security SARFASESI compliant immovable property realizable value minimum 100% is to be provided by the Complainant. Further the Bank had intimated him that his CIC score on his existing loan accounts is overdue and further requested him to clear the over dues to avoid negative impact on CIC score. But the Complainant did not comply the request of the OP. The OP No. 2 again vide its letter No. BR/REHDKHOL/2022-23/41 dated 30.01.2023 addressed to the Complainant, has clearly mentioned that his application for setting up a poultry farm under MKUY cannot be considered and the same has been rejected by he competent authority. The OP Bank again vide its letter No. RO/RH/SAMB/2023-24/142 dtd. 06.07.2023 addressed to the Complainant has clearly mentioned about non-acceptance of proposal of the Complainant regarding sanction of his loan which is well within the knowledge of the Complainant but yet he did not prefer to bring the same into the notice of this Hon’ble Commission. There is no mention about the compulsion on Bank to finance the loan without scrutinizing the documents provided by the Farmer. In this case also the OP was very good when it issued pre inspection report, but after detailed inspection when the credit score as well as the collateral security did not match with the guideline policy of OP Bank, the Bank rejected the project report of the Complainant, then the Bank became a very bad bank. The OP Bank has not done anything beyond the guideline of RBI and Central Bank of India, and not done anything which caused delay to the Complainant in granting loan. The OP Bank has followed all procedural measures provided by Bank. On the contrary the Complainant who has been a chronic defaulter in all his previous loan account has only intention to grab the subsidy and thereby to grab the public money by putting pressure on the OP Bank and when he failed in his such ill attempt to take revenge on Bank official, he has filed such false case against the OP. In all cases of loan granted to the defaulters, like Malya, Choksi, and Modi, the Bank Officials on whose direction the loans were granted and who were not followed the guidelines of Bank, have been suspended from their job from the respective Banks, so how the OP Bank can go beyond the guideline of its own Bank’s structure. When the matter is subjudiced before the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa, relating to the same matter, it is worth meaning to file this Complain case against these OPs Bank which shows the ill intention of Complainant to grab some money by way of compensation from the OP Bank.  So the Complainant is not liable to get any compensation as prayed by him.

ISSUES

1. Is the Complainant a consumer?
2. Is there any deficiency of service on part of O.Ps?
3. Whether the Complainant is entitled for getting any relief?

Issue No. 1 Is the Complainant a consumer as per CP Act?

The Complainant has deposited Rs. 10,000/- as security deposit for availing of loan. Hence he is a consumer as per CP Act, 2019.

Issue No. 2 Is there any deficiency in service in part of O.Ps?

Sanction or Rejection of loan is the discretion of the Bank but before rejection, the Bank has to follow the guideline. In this case the Bank / OPs have not intimated the Complainant and remained silent. For unexplained silence, inertia of the OPs, the Complainant has been deprived of subsidy of Rs. 50, 00,000/- from government. Hence the O.Ps are deficient in service. Rs. 10,000/- was deposited by the Complainant on 12.12.2019. Go-ahead letter was issued on 21.08.2022 by DNO, Sambalpur. Pre-sanction inspection made on 06.11.2020. Sri. Ganeswar Pradhan, Advocate submitted title report on 17.11.2020. Vide W.P.(c) No. 6384/2023 the hon’ble High Court Orissa ordered for go-ahead letter extension. C.D.V.O. vide letter No. 4498 dated 06.12.2022 extended the time till 30.11.2023 vide order No. 22.06.2023 in W.P.(C) No. 8467/2023 the O.Ps were requested for sanction of loan. The O.Ps not filed a single document to prove that the Complainant was denied to avail the loan. The O.Ps failed to establish the cause of non-sanction of loan. Govt. is providing assistance to prospective borrower for promotion of agricultural industries but due to latches of the O.Ps the Complainant could not get assistance, which amounts to deficiency in service.  The issue is answered accordingly.

Issue No. 3 Whether the Complainant is entitled for getting any relief?

From the facts of both the parties, the Complainant is entitled for getting reliefs from the OPs.

                             ORDER

The O.Ps are directed to pay an amount of Rs. 50, 00,000/- toward loss of subsidy due to lapse of time, Rs. 10,00,000/- towards loss due to deprivation of earning for 4 years because of lack of OPs arriving to a decisionand keeping the matter hanging and even not considering the sanctioning of loan on a project approved by APICOL and Agricultural department of Government of Odisha, Rs. 1, 00,000/- towards physical strain and mental agony suffered by the Complainant as compensation and Rs. 15,000/- towards cost of the petition to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of order, failing which the amount will carry with 9% interest per annum till realization to the complainant.

Order pronounced in the open Court today on 6^th day of May, 2024.

Free copies of this order to the parties are supplied.