STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW
APPEAL NO. 754 OF 1996
(Against the judgment/order dated 22-04-1996 in Complaint
Case No. 138/1996 of the District Consumer Forum, Sonbhadra)
Branch Manager
Allahabad Bank
Branch Robertsganj
District Sonbhadra
...Appellant
V/s
Anoop Kumar Agarwal
S/o Brij Bhushan Das
R/o Cinema Road, Purab Mohal
Qasba Robertsganj
District Sonbhadra
...Respondent
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MRS. BAL KUMARI, MEMBER
HON’BLE MR. VIJAI VARMA, MEMBER
For the Appellant : Mr. Deepak Mehrotra, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Rajesh Chadha, Advocate.
Dated : 21-11-2016
JUDGMENT
MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT (ORAL)
Vide impugned judgment and order dated 22-04-1996 the District Consumer Forum, Sonbhadra has allowed Complaint No. 138/1996 Anoop Kumar Agrawal V/s Branch Manager, Allahabad Bank, Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra partly and ordered opposite party to pay interest at an appropriate rate for 87 days on Rs.20,000/- which was with-held by opposite party after having sanctioned loan of Rs.35,000/- to the complainant. The District Consumer Forum has further ordered opposite party to correct account of complainant and to inform
District Consumer Forum accordingly.
Feeling aggrieved with the above judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum, appellant/opposite party Branch Manager, Allahabad Bank, Branch Robertsganj, Sonbhadra has filed present appeal
:2:
under Section-15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 before State Commission.
Learned Counsel Sri Deepak Mehrotra appeared for appellant bank.
Learned Counsel Sri Rajesh Chadha appeared for respondent/complainant.
We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned judgment and order as well as records.
Learned Counsel for the appellant bank has contended that impugned judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Forum is against law as well as evidence. The impugned judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum is liable to be set aside and the complaint filed by respondent/complainant is liable to be dismissed.
Learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant has opposed appeal and contended that impugned judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum is in accordance with law.
Learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant has further contended that the appellant bank has wrongly with-held payment of Rs.20,000/- for 87 days. The District Consumer Forum has rightly awarded interest on the said amount.
Learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant has contended that respondent/complainant was entitled to subsidy under government scheme on the loan sanctioned but appellant bank has not allowed subsidy to the respondent/complainant per government scheme.
We have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties.
According to complaint version of respondent/complainant is that the respondent/complainant was sanctioned loan of Rs.35,000/- by appellant bank under self employment scheme. The said loan was payable to him in one instalment. But the appellant bank has released it in two instalments of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.20,000/-. Thus bank has with-held payment of Rs.20,000/- for 87 days.
It has been further contended by respondent/complainant that the respondent/complainant was entitled to subsidy on said loan but appellant
:3:
bank has not allowed him subsidy in terms of self employment scheme sponsored by State Government.
Appellant Bank has opposed complaint by filing written statement.
In written statement appellant bank has stated that out of said sanctioned loan of Rs.35,000/-, first instalment of Rs.15,000/- was paid to respondent/complainant for purchasing machinery. Thereafter second instalment of loan amounting to Rs.20,000/- was released to the respondent/complainant after establishment of machinery. The loan has been released in two instalments as per practice of the bank for securing correct utilization of loan.
Perusal of impugned judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Forum shows that District Consumer Forum has held that the whole loan was payable in one instalment but the District Consumer Forum has neither recorded any reason for this finding; nor discussed any evidence or documents on the basis of which the District Consumer Forum has drawn this conclusion. The District Consumer Forum has not recorded any finding on the issue as to whether subsidy of Rs.8,750/- was admissible to the complainant/respondent and as to whether appellant bank has given said subsidy to the respondent/complainant. Without having dealt with the issue of subsidy the District Consumer Forum has ordered appellant bank to correct account of complainant/respondent and to inform District Consumer Forum. Perusal of impugned judgment passed by District Consumer Forum shows that the District Consumer Forum has not clarified as to how the account of complainant/respondent is liable to be corrected.
In view of above the order passed by the District Consumer Forum is vague as well as non-speaking. The District Consumer Forum has ordered correction of account of complainant/respondent with direction to inform District Consumer Forum. As such the District Consumer Forum should have waited the revised statement of account of respondent/complainant to pass final order in complaint.
In view of discussions made above we are of the view that the impugned judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum is not
:4:
sustainable in the eyes of law. After having gone through the whole facts and circumstances of the case as well as materials on record we are of the view that impugned judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Forum should be set aside and the case should be remanded back to the District Consumer Forum to pass a fresh order after affording opportunity of hearing to both parties.
In view of above appeal is allowed and impugned judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Forum is set aside. The case is remanded back to District Consumer Forum for passing a fresh order in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to both parties expeditiously within three months from the date of appearance fixed by this Commission.
Parties shall appear before District Consumer Forum on 20-12-2016.
Let copy of this order be made available to the parties within 15 days positively as per rules.
( JUSTICE A. H KHAN )
PRESIDENT
( SMT. BAL KUMARI )
MEMBER
( VIJAI VARMA )
MEMBER
Pnt.
