SMT. BANDANA ROY, PRESIDENT,
The synopsis of the complaint case is that the complainant is an unemployed person. For his livelihood he applied before the Chairman, of the Swami Vivekananda Swanirbhar Karmasansthan Prakalpa (Aatamaryada) (SVSKP) project, SDO, Haldia for a project for production of Chawmin. According to the terms of the project the complainant made contact with the OP no. 1 the Branch Manager of the Andhra Bank, Haldia Branch and the OP no. 1 gave verbal assent. Out of the total project of Rs. 9,22,000/- government subsidy was Rs. 1,50,000/- and the entrepreneur shall have to bear 5% of the project i.e Rs. 47,000/- and the bank shall give loan of Rs.7,25,000/-. There was also stipulation that within thirty days of the receipt of the margin money and government subsidy the bank would release the loan amount. Otherwise bank would pay interest on that money to the complainant as per bank rate. The complainant received all the terms and conditions of the project from the SDO Haldia on 15.02.2018 and the Chairman of the Project sent the Government subsidy money of Rs 1,50,000/- and all relevant papers to the Bank on 01.09.2016 and the complainant also deposited the margin money of Rs. 47,000/-to the bank by this time. But the bank did not pay all the project money to the complainant, on the contrary, the bank claimed interest on the total money of Rs 1,97,000/- which is the Government subsidy and margin money of the complainant by letter dated 11.08.2017 which was in reply to the request of the complainant to release the project money. Also by this sanction letter bank sanctioned only Rs. 5,00,000/- and also bank has sanctioned Rs. 2,59,900/- as cash credit loan although in the project there was no condition of cash credit loan. When complainant asked for balance money the bank procured signature of the complainant on some blank forms forcibly for mortgage of land. Although the bank did not sanction the total project money they all along demanded interest and also misbehaved with the complainant whenever he asked for sanction of the residue amount. The complainant was compelled to stop production for want of raw materials for production of chowmin as the bank did not pay the money. It would be seen from the bank account of the complainant being No. 137630100008443 that the OP no. 1 sanctioned Rs. 4,62,250/- on 08.11.2016, Rs. 7,500/- on 03.06.2017, Rs. 3000/- on 31.07.2017,Rs 12,500/- on 31.08.20-17 and Rs. 14,750/- on 21.09.2017 ie a total sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- including the government subsidy and margin money. The complainant has further alleged that in spite of closure of production of his unit, he had to incur a sum of Rs. 11,80,520/- for electric bill, rent of the premises, salary of the staff, night guard etc. The OPs also sent legal notice to the complainant claiming interest and also repayment of the loan and as such the complainant is under tremendous mental pressure and has been constrained to file this complaint case against the Ops for the reliefs mentioned in the complaint.
Both the OPs contested the case by filing a joint written version and denied all the material allegations of the complaint petition.
The specific case of these OPs that as per SVSKP project of the Government they sanctioned the loan as per requirement of the complainant and the complainant acknowledged the same. The bank also provided another two loans, one is term loan and another is Cash Credit loan. The bank states that in spite of receipt of the aforesaid money the complainant kept the factory under lock and key for two months from availing the loan money - as he was not interest to carry on the business or to repay the loan money. The bank asserts that once the Zonal Manager of the bank had been to the fact for inspection and then the complainant used filthy languages at him and ill behaved and also did not open the factory for inspection. The complainant did not ask the bank for any further assistance either orally or in writing at any point of time. Now the loan account of the complainant has become NPA because he did not repay any interest or installment regularly.
Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances the OPs pray for dismissal of the complaint.
On the pleadings of the parties as above, the following issues need be considered (1) whether the case is maintainable and whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for.
DECISION WITH REASONS.
Both the points are taken up together for discussion for the sake of convenience and brevity.
Perused the complaint, the written version of the OPs, the affidavit in-chief of the complainant, questionnaires by the OP and reply of the complainant. Perused the documents filed by the parties. Heard the argument as advanced by the Ld. Advocate for both sides. Considered.
Admittedly the bank provided loan to the complainant under the SVSKP scheme as per requirement of the complainant and the complainant accepted the same without any kind of objection. According to the OPs the complainant has been provided other two loans ie, one term loan and another cash credit loan. The allegation of the OPs is that in spite of getting the money the complainant stopped production of chowmin and kept the factory premises under lock and key for two months from the date of receipt of the loan amount. It has been realized by the OPs that the complainant was not interested to run his business nor to repay the loan amount to the bank. It is also alleged that when the officer and staff of the bank had been to the factory premise of the complainant for inspection they had been misbehaved and the factory was kept closed and they were not allowed to inspect the factory of the complainant. The present status of the loan account of the complainant according to the ops are Pro NPA because the complainant did not pay any interest nor paid any installment of the loan amount.
As per section 2 (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986, consumer means : who hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed or with the approval of the first mentioned person.
So, it appears that the complainant is well within the ambit of a customer as he availed of the service from the bank against payment of interest.
Now let us see if there is any deficiency on the part of the OP Bank in providing service to the complainant. The complainant answered to question no. 10 that the bank did not claim any interest over the loan which the complainant had taken from the bank. In answer to question no. 15 the complainant stated that he did not submit any accounts, register receipts attendance register of the employee and the salary sheet of the staff of the business. The OP suggested that within two months of availing the bank loans the complainant stopped production of noodles and kept the factory under lock and key for avoiding repayment of the bank loan.
The Bank has filed the Statement of accounts with regard to the Loan Account of the complainant.From the answer to the question no. 7 the complainant stated that the bank has sanctioned Rs. 7,25,000/-. From the statement of Term Loan Accounts No. 137613100000308filed by the bank it appears that the complainant availed of the loan amount as per SVSKP schemeas per requirements of the complainant and the complainant had no objection in that regard. The complainant also admits that the bank sanctioned and provided the loan amount on different dates. But there is no document to show that the complainant repaid the entire amount or part thereof, rather from the own statement of the complainant in answer to the questionnaires as above, it appears that the complainant did not start the business at all or closed the business immediately on receipt of the sanctioned amount, as there is no document filed by the complainant which can lead us to believe that the business was running for some days or so, as asserted by the complainant.The OPs submits that when the Zonal Manage of the bank had been to inspect the factory premises of the complainant, he was obstructed from doing so and he was misbehaved by the complainant. So, the plea of the complainant that he suffered loss of Rs. 11,80,520/- finds no support from any corner. The complainant did not file any scrap of paper such as accounts, register, receipts attendance register of the employeeand the salary sheet of the staff of the business which he stated in answer to question no. 15filed by the OP Bank which creates a doubt that the business was ever in existence. The Loan account of the complainant has now become NPA as per assertion of the OPs, as the complainant did not repay the loan installments or interest regularly.
Unfair trade practice as per this Act means a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice including any of the following practices namely :
- The practice of making any statement, whether orally or in writing or by visible representation which ,-
- Falsely represents that the goods are of a particular standard, quality, quantity, grade, composition style or model ………..withholding from the participants of any scheme offering gifts, prizes or other items free of charge, on its closure the information about final results of the scheme.etc.
From the discussion as above it appears that the complainant has failed to prove any unfair trade practice against the OP Bank. Accordingly we are of the view that the complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed for in the complaint. The complainant may choose any different forum for redressal of his grievance.
Both the points are answered accordingly.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
That CC/ 80 of 2018 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OPs without any order of costs.
Let copy of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost.
