This is a complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the prayer for an order directing the O.Ps./ Bandhan Financial Private Limited to sanction further loan and to pay compensation of Rs.95,000/- for unnecessary harassment and financial loss and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.

The complainant a resident of village Birnagar, Raiganj obtained loan from O.P., who used to provide services by giving loan to poor persons in group wise. Petitioner took loan first in the year 2006 for starting business as member of a group namely ‘Rubi Group’ and regularly paid installments and since then took loan in every year for financial help in business. Lastly she took a loan of Rs.25,000/- payable by 104 equal installments of Rs.300/- each and was going on paying installments. In the meantime in the month of March, 2015 she proposed O.P. for further loan to develop her business. Then O.P. No.1 advised her to pay the balance installments of said loan of Rs.25,000/- at a time and to apply for a further loan. O.P. No.1 also assured her the next loan will be sanctioned within 15 days of application. As per advise, petitioner paid Rs.8,697/- on 14.03.2015 with an application for further loan of Rs.45,000/-. But the O.P. No.1 did not sanction the loan of Rs.45,000/- and unnecessarily harassed the petitioner and lastly on 30.05.2015 refused to pay loan. Then petitioner sent legal notice requesting O.P. to sanction loan in her favour, which was duly received by O.P. No.1, but with no reply from its end. Petitioner alleges that she repaid her previous loan paying at a time Rs.8,697/- from her business capital. That he is a bonafide customer, a beneficiary of the O.P. since 2006. Therefore, the refusal of the O.P. for sanctioning the proposed loan of Rs.45,000/- causes great financial loss and hardship. Therefore she come up before this Forum with this complaint petition with the above mentioned prayer. 

O.P. No.1 and 2 contested this case by filing written version. O.Ps. stated that by a Certificated of Incorporation, dated 17.12.2014 of Government of India, Ministry of Affairs, “Bandhan Financial Services Private Limited” has been converted into a Public Limited Company U/s 18 of Companies Act, 2013 and is known at present Bandhan Financial Services Limited. That the above complaint is not maintainable. That complainant is not a customer under the CP Act, 1986 as the relationship of the parties is that of debtor and creditor. That, O.P. neither agreed to render nor render any service to the complainant. O.Ps. never practiced fraud or unfair trade practice with complainant. O.Ps. denied all the allegations and claimed that complainant has suppressed material facts. That, loan to the customers of O.P. is based upon contract where proposal is received from the person who intends to take loan from the company. After perusal of her proposal (application) and considering her ability of repayment, company used to grant loan. That, the complainant was one of the member of ‘Rubi Group’, consisting of 35 members in total. As a member of the group she took loan under the Scheme of unorganized self employment “Suchana Reen Karmasuchi”, on the contract where proposal is received from her and considering her ability to repayment, loan was granted. It came to the notice of the O.P. from reliable source that complainant applied for fresh loan of Rs.45,000/- for a purpose other than for the purpose, the loan is provided under the Scheme “Suchana Reen Karmasuchi”. The group members consisting of 35, to which complainant belongs, also requested the O.P. in writing not to disburse loan in her favour. That, the complainant has repaid her previous loan paying of Rs.8,697/- at her own will. Nobody from the O.P./ Bank assured her to provide further loan of Rs.45,000/- and lastly prays for dismissal of this case as O.P. is not otherwise negligent or deficient in service.

To establish the case, the complainant has relied upon an affidavit-in-chief sworn by her as P.W.1. Complainant files documents like photocopy of Advocate’s Letter, photocopy of Pass Book. O.Ps. filed questionnaires and complainant answers to questionnaires. O.P. also examined one Sourav Sengupta as Cluster Head of Bandhan Bank, Raiganj Cluster-II and files documents like copy of letter dated 30.04.2015 & 22.06.2015 of ‘Rubi Group’ addressed to the Branch Manager & Deputy General of the Bank, Certificate of Corporation Power of attorney etc.

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

Giving due consideration to the contents of the complaint petition, documentary evidence on record, hearing, argument advanced by the lawyers of both sides, the Ld. Forum has come to the findings as follows: -

It is admitted fact that the complainant is one of the member of ‘Rubi Group’ and took loan as a member of the said group under Self Employment Scheme, “Suchana Reen Karmasuchi”. As P.W.-1 complainant deposed that she used to take loan from the Bank and last occasion took loan of Rs.25,000/- payable by 104 equal installments of Rs.300/- each. She further claimed that she approached for fresh loan of Rs.45,000/- and was assured by the Bank. But there is no iota of evidence that she was assured by the Bank or her loan was sanctioned by the Bank on 14.03.2015, as alleged. On the contrary O.P./ Bank adduced evidence by cluster head of the Bank, Sourav Sengupta deposed as O.P.W.-1 that the objection letter signed by the Group members received by the Bank not to disburse further loan of Rs.45,000/- to the petitioner. The copy of the said letter duly signed by 25 - 30 members of the Group goes to show this fact. Another letter dated 22.06.2015 of one Nandita Das as ‘Sakha Byabasthapika’ i.e. head of the Group requesting O.P./ Bank not to disburse loan to the petitioner showing possibility of non-payment and alleging that complainant is taking loan for other purpose not approved by the Scheme. O.P. further stated that he repaid the last loan paying Rs.8,697/- at a time at her own will. Complainant failed to file any document in support of her claim that she repaid the money Rs.8,697/-, the remaining due of her last loan, as a precondition to secure further loan of Rs.45,000/- O.P./ Bank stated that complainant applied for fresh loan of Rs.45,000/- for some purpose which was in contravention with the objective and purpose of the “Suchana Reen Karmasuchi” scheme.

In our considerate view we hold that it is within the domain of the Bank to grant loan to any borrower and also to refuse anybody to grant loan following norms and procedure of the banking policy. In this case O.P. has been able to prove that while the members of the Group in writing put objection of granting further loan of Rs.45,000/- to the petitioner as a member of the Group, then the O.P./ bank may not take the risk of granting further loan to the petitioner. There is no evidence that petitioner was assured or sanctioned by the Bank to disburse the fresh loan of Rs.45,000/-, then mere repayment of her last loan at a time by paying a lump-sum amount, as payment due, will not prove this case in favour of petitioner. Moreover it is beyond purview of Consumer Forum to adjudicate whether granting of loan in favour of petitioner is any deficiency in service on behalf of the O.P./ Bank. “It is within the exclusive business policy and discretionary power of the concerned bank to disburse loan following the guidance & Rules of its Authority concerned under any financial Scheme. O.P. further claimed that complainant is not a consumer but a borrower of money in respect of a loan under the Scheme. Therefore from the conduct of the O.P. we do not find any deficiency in service by the Bank.

In the light of our above discussions we can safely conclude that the complainant fails to prove her case and is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. As a result the complaint case fails.

Fees paid is correct.

Hence, it is

ORDERED,

That the consumer complaint being No. CC - 40/2015 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.P. No.1 & 2.

Let copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.