West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/17/2013

Auto Electrical Service - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager, Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

A.K.Dutta

08 Jan 2014

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.17/2013                                                   Date of disposal: 08/01/2014                                   

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. Sujit Kumar Das.

                                                      MEMBER :  xxxxxxxxxxx

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

    For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. A. K. Dutta, Advocate.

    For the Defendant/O.P.S.                           : Mr. S. Das,  Advocate.

          

                  Auto Electrical Service, proprietor-Saheb Ghosh, Vill & P.O.-Sat Bankura,                                   

                  P.S.-Garhbeta, Dist Paschim Medinipur………………Complainant.

                                                              Vs.

                  Branch manager, Bank of India Having its branch office at Dabcha, P.O.-Sat Bankura,                                  

      P.S.-Garhbeta, Dist Paschim Medinipur ………………Op.

 

                 Case of the complainant Sri Saheb Ghosh, in short, is that he being a registered unemployed young person moved before the Op Branch Manager Bank of India under the Government scheme for the project of a self-employment on Auto Electrical Service for which he secured sanction of 9,00,000/- (Nine lakhs) only as total project cost against the security deposit of 90,000/- (Ninety thousand) only by virtue of which Government subsidy to the amount of                  2,25,000/- (Two lakhs twenty five thousand) only the complainant will get under certain terms and conditions.  In this connection, the complainant necessarily took a rental accommodation under long term agreement. The complainant thereafter got delivery of Auto Electrical Service machineries at the cost of 4,36,000/- (Four lakhs thirty six thousand) only paid by the Op-Bank as plant and Machinery account.  For the purpose of operation of the plant machinery, necessary quotation for supply of electricity was taken.  It is contended by the complainant that even thereafter the Op has not paid a sum of  4,64,000/- (Four lakhs sixty four thousand) only on account of working capital, duly sanctioned in favour of the complainant enabling him to start his project.  Stating the case the complainant prays for passing necessary order for payment of working capital without claiming interest till date with effect from its sanction.  The complainant also prays for harassment cost of  2,00,000/- (Two lakhs) etc.                                                                 

Contd………………..P/2

                                                                      

 

- ( 2 ) -

                        The Op-Bank of India contested the case by filing written objection challenging that the case is not maintainable in its present form as the complainant is not a consumer according to the Consumer Protection Act.  Moreover, the case is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.  The loan transactioned in favour of the complainant for the purpose of his business under the name and style Auto Electric Service under the total project cost of  9,00,000/- (Nine lakhs) only out of which 10% was admittedly deposited by the complainant and the rest of 8,10,000/- (Eight lakhs ten thousand) only was the subject of provisional sanction order dated 24/2/2011 as a term loan.  Admittedly, a sum of  4,36,000/- (Four thousand thirty six thousand) only out of total bank loan was sanctioned for purchasing machineries etc. keeping the rest amount as working capital to be sanctioned at material point of time. In this connection, the complainant suppressed the fact of the premises owned by his father Sri Bisweswar Ghosh who runs a separates business in the same premises under the mortgage with the State Bank of India, Chandrakona Branch by virtue of taking loan there from.  A sign board of such hypothecation of goods and machineries in favour of State Bank of India was also displayed in the wall of the said premises wherein a business unit of his father was running.  Since electric connection was the precondition to the working capital, though, provisionally sanctioned cannot be disbursed.  Upon physical inspection the alleged fact was exposed which relates to the criminal case of misappropriation of bank money.  Thus, the Op-Bank claims for dismissal of the case with cost.

    

                     The complainant in view of the allegation of misappropriation of bank money has not raised any objection by taking appropriate step.

   

                      In view of the case of both parties the following issues are very much relevant for discussion in order to arrive at a correct decision.

 

Issues :

1. Whether the case is maintainable in its present form ?
2. Whether the complainant is a consumer according to the Consumer Protection Act ?
3. Whether the bank is liable for deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant ?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled for getting relief as prayed for ?

Decision with reasons :

Issue Nos.1 & 2.

 

                        Ld. Advocate for the complainant argued that it is injustice done by the Op-Bank that even after necessary sanction, the Op has not disbursed the working capital in favour of the

Contd………………..P/3

                                                                       

- ( 3 ) -

complainant.  Having reliance upon the Op, the complainant made all necessary arrangements for the purpose of running his project.  In this connection, the complainant has repeatedly moved before the Op for early disbursement of the working capital so that the complainant may carry on his project under self-employment scheme through the argument, Ld Advocate suggested for giving necessary direction to the Op-Bank for making immediate disbursement of the working capital.

 

                           Ld. Advocate for the Op-Bank on the other hand made his argument challenging the case of complainant as appears in his petition of complaint should not lie before this Forum on the ground that the complainant is not qualified to be a consumer under the clear definition of the Consumer Protection Act.  Here in this matter, Ld. Advocate has drawn our attention to the contents appearing in the written objection supported by affidavit that admittedly the complainant is to run a business in the name and style of Auto Electric Service for his profit. The statute, as the Ld. Advocate explains, relates to the provisions of 2(D)(ii) that person who avails of service for any commercial purpose will not be designated to be a consumer.  Thus, when the complainant is not a consumer according to law, no such complaint before the Forum filed by him should be maintained and as a result, the case should be dismissed.

   

                           Upon careful consideration of the argument as above we have carefully made a scrutiny of the entire record and it appears that the project is of the complaint is in the nature of a commercial purpose which attracts to the Provisions of 2(D)(ii) of the said Act and as such the complainant should be considered to be a consumer. Thus, the issue is held and decided against the complainant.

 

Issue no. 3 :

                    Ld advocate for the complainant argued that the complainant has taken due preparation namely:

1. Arrangement for viable premises for starting Auto Electrical Service;
2. Necessary installation of electricity and
3. The complainant already arranged machineries under the bank assistance.

                    

                   Even, thereafter, the op bank has not supported the complainant by virtue of disbursement of the working capital.  This is deficiency in service against the Op-Bank and as such necessary direction is required to be given to the Op for immediate payment of working capital enabling the Government to run his business.

     Contd………………..P/4

                                                                      

 

- ( 4 ) -

                       Ld. Advocate for the Op has made a challenge that the entire scheme was subjected to the necessary arrangement to be taken by the complainant but no such successful installment of electricity connection nor the premises as of  his own has been arranged.  If that be so, according to the Ld. Advocate, there is no admissible case in favour of the complainant for enjoying the disbursement of the working capital.  In the event of non-compliance with the terms and conditions from the end of the complainant, there exists no question of disbursement of working capital in his favour.  In this context, the Op bank will not be liable for deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant in his case.

    

                        On the issue of alleged deficiency in service, the case along with admitted documents of both sides is carefully gone through.  It appears that there is no legal evidence showing that the complainant has fulfilled the terms and conditions for availing of the working capital for running the Project, nor is there evidence on electric connection and arrangement of appropriate authorized premises Auto Electrical Service.

 

                         Under the fact and circumstance, there is no material ground to hold the Op-Bank should be guilty of deficiency in service.  As a result the present issue is held and decided in favour of the Op-Bank.  

 

Issue no. 4 :

                         Following the decisions upon the issuewise discussion as made hereinabove, it is concluded to the effect that there is no material against the Op-Insurance Company and thereby the case as it is filed by the complainant should be dismissed.

 

              Hence,

                          It is ordered,

                                               that the case be and the same is  dismissed on contest without cost.                     

Dic. & Corrected by me

              

         President                                            Member                             President

                                                                                                         District Forum

                                                                                                     Paschim Medinipur