Mr. Nayanananda Dash, Male-Member - The case relates to alleged deficiency of service by the OP-Bank as stated by the complainant in not providing either further loan or exemption from repayment of existing loan amount.
2. Brief fact of the case is such that one Mr. Bijayaketan Behera, aged about 66 years S/o- Late Niranjan Behera of Vill- Shyamsundarpur,Po- Bhagabatpur,Ps-Kendrapara Sadar,Dist-Kendrapara had applied for a loan for establishment of a poultry unit in the OP-Bank and had submitted a project report. The OP-Bank being satisfied with the viability of the project and other factors had sanctioned a loan for Rs.1,88,000/- in March,2011 and after fulfillment of all formalities in connection with the loan had disbursed the whole amount in different phases to the complainant. The complainant was under the impression that the OP-Bank would finance further whenever necessity would arise even after availing the full amount of loan sanctioned. The complainant states that the OP-Bank had sought a no objection certificate from the local Sarpanch regarding the establishment of poultry business which the Sarpanch had given a report raising some objection for the establishment of poultry unit in the vicinity of village. The complainant further states that the OP-Bank had intimated the complainant not to finance further basing upon such report of the Sarpanch although it had assured to finance him in future. The complainant is of the view that the OP-Bank broke away from the assurance after getting the adverse report from the Sarpanch and meanwhile the complainant had invested around 4.00 lakhs in the construction of the shed. That due to non-financing by the OP-Bank, the complainant could not rear the chicks being the main activity of the project. Due to non commissioning of the business, the complainant sustained a heavy loss in the business for which he was unable to repay the loan installment. In spite of sustaining loss, the complainant has repaid more than one lakh in the loan account. The complainant squarely accuses the OP-Bank that due to seeking of report from the Sarpanch and after getting adverse report, refusing to finance further to the complainant resulted in complete failure of the unit due to non rearing of chiks and has put the complainant in severe financial loss along with mental torture. Although the complainant approached the OP to further finance or to exempt from repayment of loan, the OP sent notices for realization of loan amount which has compelled him to approach the Consumer Forum.
3. Being noticed, the OP-Bank has submitted the written statement in which the OP-Bank has denied the allegations made by the complainant. The OP-Bank has questioned about the maintainability of the complaint and questioned the locus standi as well as cause of action. The OP-Bank has stated that, the complainant had approached the OP-Bank to finance him for the establishment of a poultry farm. As the complainant belonged to the local area and within service area of the Bank, it took into consideration the said loan proposal of the complainant for a poultry farm which was approved by the Addl.Veterinary Surgeon,Kendrapara after which the bank sanctioned a sum of Rs.1,88,000/- as loan to the complainant on dtd. 03.03.2011. The loan was disbursed by the OP-Bank phase wise starting from dt.07.03.2011 to dtd.28.06.11. The Veterinary Surgeon has also certified that there is no threat of any disease outbreak and environmental pollutions in the project report itself. The OP-Bank has denied the OP sought any environmental pollution certificate from the local Sarpanch as the Sarpanch was not a technical person. The OP-Bank states that it has fully disbursed the amount of loan sanctioned i.e. Rs.1,88,000/- to the complainant and the complainant was running his business. The complainant had never applied to the Op-Bank for enhancement of loan for running the business and started repayment of the loan regularly till dtd.24.10.14. The complainant had repaid a total amount of around Rs.1,35,000/- in different installments. After October,2014, the complainant defaulted to repay the loan amount for which the OP-Bank sent notices from time to time. The complainant has also written to the OP-Bank to wait for some time till November-30,2014. The OP-Bank has stated that even if the Sarpanch has submitted any letter without any intimation by the OP-Bank, is liable to be ignored and has nothing to do with the loan already sanctioned and disbursed.
4. Heard the submissions of Ld. Counsel for complainant and case of the OP-Bank on merit. OP-Bank in their written statement raised the question of maintainability on the ground that as per the provisions of C.P.Act,1986 the complaint is time-barred by citing report decision as the actual cause of action arose on dtd.20.07.2012 as per the complaint petition, when the OP-Bank denied the finance more money than the assured amount and the complaint is filed in February,2015 after receipt of the notice of the OP-Bank on realization of the loan amount. Paragraph-5 of the complaint petition reveals that on dtd.20.07.2012 basing on the letter of the local Sarpanch OP-Bank refused to sanction more money. According to us this plea of the OP-Bank has no legal entity of accrual cause of action. As per the complaint petition and written statement of the OP-Bank the accrual cause of action arose on dtd.12.09.2014. When the OP-Bank issued notice to complainant-borrower and the complainant-borrower on the same day undertakes and seeks some more time to repay the loan amount, to substantiate the version OP-Bank files the attested photo copies of notice and undertaking of complainant dtd. 12.09.2014. The complaint is filed on February,2015. In the circumstances, the complaint is filed within time limit prescribed Section-24-A of the C.P.Act,1986.
Taking into consideration all the allegations by the complainant and the counter submission provided by the OP-Bank, one thing is clear is that the loan applied by the complainant for the establishment of poultry firm with approval by the Veterinary Surgeon,Kendrapara, was duly considered by the OP-Bank and an amount of Rs.1,88,000/- being the 80 per cent of the project cost of Rs.2,35,000/- for the poultry firm was sanctioned which was accepted by the complainant. Accordingly, after fulfillment of formalities, the said loan was disbursed. The complainant neither raised the issue of quantum of finance before the bank before availing disbursement. Similarly after availing full disbursement of the loan and after running the unit for certain period, he had never drawn the attention of the OP-Bank regarding difficulties faced by him in running the business and applying for further accommodation in writing. Similarly, when the complainant defaulted in repayment of loan could the bank issued notice, he had written to the OP-Bank to give some time i.e. till Nov.,2014 but had not stated about any problem. Further, the complainant has raised the issue of seeking pollution certificate from the Sarpanch by the Bank which appears to be a non issue. The OP-Bank has denied such allegation and stated that it should be ignored when the Veterinary Surgeon has provided for environmental clearance of the unit in the project report itself, and the Sarpanch certificate has not affected in any way so far as sanction and disbursement of the poultry loan is concerned, certificate of Sarpanch is of no significance. Further the submission of the complainant either to finance further without any detailed clarification or to exempt from repayment of loan is not prayed for in the complaint petition. Complainant in his complaint petition seeks compensation of Rs.5 lakhs for loss of business and mental torture. In this aspect, we are of the unanimous view that the compensation claimed for is having without any basis and as per our aforesaid observations when the OP-Bank has not committed any fault or deficiency, we can not allow the prayer of the complaint, rather we left it to the OP-Bank to consider the case of complainant- borrower sympathetically and should initiate to fit the grievance of the complainant in other schemes like OTS, if permissible under the provisions of the Bank.
Hence, the case is dismissed as per our aforesaid observations, without any cost.
Pronounced in the open Court, this the 19th November,2016.
