| Final Order / Judgement | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM CACHAR :: SILCHAR Con. Case No. 43 of 2012 Sri Bivash Ranjan Dey, …………………………………………………. Complainant. -V/S- 1. The Branch Manager, Assam Gramin Vikash Bank, Plonghat Branch, Vill & P.O- Cachar (Assam)………………………………….Opp. Party Present: - Sri Bishnu Debnath, President, District Consumer Forum, Cachar, Silchar. Mrs. Chandana Purkayastha, Member, District Consumer Forum, Cachar, Silchar. Shri Kamal Kumar Sarda, Member, District Consumer Forum, Cachar, Silchar. Appeared :- Sri Ruchiraj Chakraborty, Advocate for the complainant. Sri Sibdas Dutta, Advocate for the O.P. Date of evidence………………………………. 28-01-2013, 01-03-2013 Date of written argument……………………. 08-08-2013 Date of argument…………….......................... 26-05-2017 Date of judgment……………………………... 29-05-2017 JUDGMENT AND ORDER (Sri Bishnu Debnath) - The Complaint filed U/S 12 of the C.P Act 1986 for directing the Branch Manager Assam Gramin Vikash Bank (O.P) to release balance part of Loan amount of Rs. 3,10,000/- in view of loan sanction under PMGEP Scheme on approval of Assam Khadi and Village Industries Board (AKVIB) and also for award of other reliefs.
- Brief Story:- The Complainant Sri Bivash Ranjan Dey of Palonghat, Cachar had been sanctioned loan of Rs.4,00,000/- under Prime Minister Employment Generation Programme (PMEGP) in view of approval of AKVIB vide sanction Ref. No. AGVB/PLG/EMEGP/SSI/2011-12 dated 24/12/2011, Project No. KBDO/SIL/PMEGP/Cachar/2011-12/195 dated 20/09/2011 of AKVIB. The loan was sanction by O.P for starting shop established of DTP and Graphical works by the Complainant. Accordingly the Complainant received Rs. 90,000/-. He purchased computer set and took a shop on rent at Palongahat. He took the rented house for Rs.1,000/-per month. Thereafter, he submitted all voucher/bills of purchasing the tools etc to the O.P in presence of 2/3 known person but the O.P refused to release remaining part of loan. For which Complainant has been suffering from loss of at least Rs.20,000/- per month from his business profit. Finding no alternative he served pleader’s notice on 01/08/2012 and on 02/08/2012 but the O.P did not release the balance loan amount.
- Notice received by the O.P in due course of process. He submitted W/S. In the W/S denied all allegation and took plea that after releasing the first phase of loan of Rs. 90,000/- visited several dates to the shop establishment of the Complainant which is situated very nearer to the Branch of the O.P at Palonghat but in all occasion found the shop was closed. Accordingly, issued letter to the Complainant but the Complainant did neither Co-operate the O.P nor show the purchased computers set to the O.P at his shop established. For which, the remaining part of the loan has been stopped with opinion that the Complainant has utilized the release amount of loan of Rs. 90,000/- to his personnel purpose and not in the approved project. Hence, it has been expressed to realize the released amount from the Complainant and if require may lodge the money suit against him.
- During hearing the Complainant deposed as P.W-1 and exhibited 5(Five) document including sanction letter and also examined Suman Dey as P.W-2 to establish a fact that the cash memos/bills deposited to O.P is his presence. The O.P also deposed as D.W-1 and exhibited as many as 7(Seven) documents including corresponding letter addressed to the Complainant for showing the purchased articles, inspection report of the establishment of the Complainant etc. After closing evidence both the parties submitted their written argument. We have also heard oral argument of the Ld. Advocate of the O.P.
- In this case it is clear from the evidence that Loan under PMEGP was sanction. The sanctioned amount was Rs.3,80,000/- because the complainant is to bear expenditure of Rs.20,000/-, vide Ext. 2 and Ext. 4. It is also undisputed fact that the Loan was sanctioned for DTP and graphical works. The Complainant also received Rs.90,000/- as phase one Loan from O.P under the above mentioned programme.
- But the O.P took plea that the Complainant misutilized the released amount of Rs.90,000/- and accordingly, deposed to establish the plea that on several occasions the shop of the Complainant was visited by the Bank Official but found closed and unable to see the alleged purchased Computer sets etc. The DW also exhibited all the inspection report vide Ext. C, E and F. We have gone through the contents of all those exhibited documents. As per the said document. The Bank Official found the shop was closed. Not only that the DW also deposed that the matter was informed to the Complainant and asked to submit Bills/memos for purchasing of goods in connection with the disbursement of the released amount of Rs.90,000/- but the Complainant did not show any relevant documents to support the fact. The O.P exhibited letter vide Ext.A, Ext.B and Ext.D.
- However, the O.P exhibited a money receipt vide Ext.D allegedly issued by Logic Infosys, Silchar. But the said documents does not contain particular of alleged purchased goods except a fact of receiving cheque of the O.P for Rs.90,000/-.
- Anyhow, the Complainant deposed that he showed the Bills/memos to the O.P in presence of 2/3 person and accordingly P.W.2 supported that fact by deposing that the Complainant showed Cash memos etc. regarding purchasing of the goods to the O.P. The deposit of the P.W.2 is not reliable because he has given a general statement only. In his evidence nothing was found about particular of the alleged purchased computer. Moreover, his evidence does not support any material fact that the complainant showed the purchased material to the O.P.
- Hence, in our considered view when Loan was sanction under a scheme and 1st part of Loan released, it is the bounded duty of the loanee (Complainant) to show the relevant documents and material for utilization of the said amount and the amount which was asked to spend from his own fund to initiate the establishment as per the approved project. But in this case the Complainant failed to produce the cash memos etc. to convince this Forum that he showed those cash memos to the O.P and fulfilled all the conditions for setting release of remaining part of sanctioned Loan.
- Therefore, in this case we do not find any deficiency of service of the O.P. In this case O.P is acting as a lender of Loan and complainant is loanee. So,there is contract in connection with loan only. The Banking service is not withdrawn in view of above fact, so far as the SB Account of the Complainant maintained in the branch of the O.P. So there is no direct relation with SB Account of the complainant and sanctioned loan. Sanctioned loan is released on phase manner on certain condition and if the Complainant fail to satisfy the O.P regarding expressed or implied condition the O.P has right to stop releasing of balance amount of sanctioned loan and may ask the complainant to refund the amount of loan received already.
- Hence, in view of above observation and considering the status of both the parties in respect of sanctioned loan herein above we are of opinion that the issue relating to the question as whether the complainant is consumer of the O.P. in respect of sanctioned loan is redundant to decide.
- With the above, we do not find it is a fit case to grant any relief. Thus this case is dismissed on contest.
Given under the hand of the President and Members of this District Forum and seal of the Office of the District Forum on this the 29th day of May, 2017. | |
