Orissa

Jajapur

CC/80/2014

Smt.Manorama Sahoo - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager Indian Overseas Bank,Jajpur - Opp.Party(s)

Alok Kumar Pane

25 Apr 2016

ORDER

                IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:      1.Shri Biraja Prasad Kar, President

                                                                            2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                            3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.

                                              Dated the 25th day of April,2016.

                                                      C.C.Case No.80 of 2014

Smt Manorama Sahoo  W/O Gopal charan Sahoo

At/ Nayaksahi,  P.O.Debidwar

Dist.-Jajpur.                                                                                     …… ……....Complainant .                                                                       .

                   (Versus)

1. Branch Manager,Indian Overseas Bank,Jajpur

  At.Gariapur ,P.O/Dist.Jajpur

2.General  Manager, District Industries Center,At/P.O. Jagatpur,

   Dist.Cuttack.

                                                                                                                                                      …………………..Opp.Parties.            

                                          

For the Complainant:                                  Sri A.K.Pani, Sri P.K.Panda ,Advocates.

For the Opp.Party No.1                              Sri G.C.Panda, Miss B.R.Rout,Advocates.

For the Opp.Party No.2 :                             Sri P.K.Panda (A.G.P)                                                                                                                                        

                                                                                                                     Date of order:  25. 04. 2016

MISS SMITA  ROY , LADY  MEMBER .

                The petitioner has filed the present dispute against the O.ps. specially against O.P.no.1 due to non release of the working capital towards P.M.E.G.P loan.

                The facts shortly as stated by the petitioner in her complaint  petition are that the petitioner is  an inhabitant of village Nayak Sahi which is within the jurisidiction of Dist.Jajpur as well as a house wife. Due to unavoidable circumstances applied for P.M.E.G.P loan to maintain her livelihood. The loan application of the petitioner was duly considered as well as forwarded by O.P.no.2 to O.P.no.1 with recommendation  to sanction Rs.5,00,000/- for opening a ground nut decorticating  project   . Thereafter the O.P.no.2 released Rs.1,25,000/- in favour of the petitioner as subsidy amount of the above P.M.E.G.P loan and the amount was credited in favour of O.P.no.1 for necessary action. It is stated by the petitioner soon after the P.M.E.G.P application was received by O.P.no.1 the petitioner was asked to submit the relevant documents and after completion of all official / banking formalities the O.P.no.1 released Rs.8,000/- on 07.03.13 as working capital and the same was credited in petitioner’s A/C bearing No.311400002 . As per advice of O.P.no.1 the

petitioner deposited Rs.250/- as interest on 16.06.2014 against the credited amount of Rs.8,000/- . Thereafter the O.P.no.1 released Rs.1,06,200 /- in favour of the petitioner towards Block capital in shape of D.D and the same was drawn in favour of Ritanjali Enterprises  the dealer to supply the materials including Decoticator machine  to the petitioner for decorating unit . It is also stated by the petitioner that after receipt of the 10.nos of materials from Ritanjali Enterprises the petitioner opened decorating unit  in a house which was approved by O.P.no.1 . Subsequently as per advice of O.P.no.1 the petitioner deposited Rs.80,000/- on 23.06.2014 to be kept as fixed deposit in the name of the petitioner so as to enable the O.P.no.1 to release the working capital for running the project. Similarly the O.P.no.1 also has taken rs.919/- as GTMSE fee on 28.07.2014 . It is further stated by the petitioner that after receipt of the amount of Rs.80,000/- and G.T.M.S.E fee the O.P.no.1 after inspection on 03.09.2014 has served a notice to the petitioner which is not sustainable in the eye of law on his ground.

                (a)The P.M.E.G.P loan has been financed in favour of the petitioner as has been admitted by O.P.no.1 vide his letter dt.17.10.2014.

                (b)The O.P.no.1 also had admitted in the above letter that the decorticating  machine has been installed by the petitioner.

                (c)The petitioner is no way liable for the standard of the decorticating  machine since the same has been supplied by Ritanjali Enterprises.

                (d)The O.P.no.1 has not inspected the other materials besides the decorticating machine.

                Accordingly it is stated by the petitioner  that owing to the above grounds though the petitioner is no way liable for the allegation of O.P.no.1 . On the other hand without releasing the working capital the O.P.no.1 vide his letter dt.17.10.14 has recalled the loan  of the petitioner which is not sustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly the petitioner finding no  other  way has  filed the present dispute with the prayer to direct the O.P.no.1 to release the working capital as well as award Rs.10,000/- as compensation in favour of the petitioner .

                There are two nos. of O.Ps, who after appearance have filed the written version in support of their defence denying the allegation of the petitioner.

                As per written version of O.P.no.1 the petitioner is not a consumer of O.P.no.1. it is stated by O.P no.1 soon after the application of the petitioner was sponsored by o.p.NO.2 ( D.I.C, Odisha) for opening of a ground nut decoticating unit having the project  cost of Rs.5 lakh  the O.P.no.1 after completion of Bank formalities including execution of agreement sanctioned  of Rs.4.75 thousand in favour of the petitioner. Out of the sanctioned amount at  the initial stage the O.P.no.1 released Rs.8000/- towards Block capital for house rent and white wash  working purpose. Thereafter the O.P.no.1 released Rs.1,06,200/- as Block capital in the name of Ritanjali Enterprises for supplying the Decoticating materials including the machine to the petitioner.

After disbursement of the Block capital though it was the duly of the petitioner to submit bill, invoice challan in support of purchase of the materials but the petitioner without doing so remained silent. She has kept the Bank in darkness. Accordingly the O.P.no.1 on 03.09.14 visited the spot for verification. On verification it is observed by O.P.no.1 that one old Decoticating machine has been placed in the house. In such house the materials of other persons are kept. The O.P.no.1 instructed  the petitioner to remove the materials of other persons and install the machineries and equipments. Again on 16.10.14 there was an joint verification of both the O.ps and on verification it is found that only biscuit packet, rice packet, oil packets are filled inside the rented house of petitioner’s unit and no machine is kept inside the room. Similarly the old machine which was found in the date of previous inspection was not available. On quarry the husband of the petitioner explained that the materials which has been kept inside the project room  is for his own business and the decoticator  machine which was available in the previous date of inspection has been sent for repairing  since the machine was not working. Owing to above factual aspects it is cristal clear that the petitioner has mis-utilised the Block capital as well as frustrate the intention of P.M.E.G.P scheme for which on 17.10.14 the loan has been recalled by O.P.no.1  with a copy to O.P.no.2 . Due to the facts stated above the working capital has not released in favour of the petitioner . Accordingly the dispute is liable to be dismissed having no deficiency in service on the part of O.P.no.1.

                The O.P.no.2 in the written version has stated that the petitioner is not a consumer of O.p.no.2 . The O.P.no.2 being the implementing agency of P.M.E.G.P scheme has sponsored the name of the petitioner to O.P.no.1 having the project cost of Rs.5,00,000/- for starting a ground nut decorticating  unit  under P.M.E.G.P scheme . Accordingly the O.P.no.2 has released the margin money of Rs.1,25,000/- to O.P.no.1 in favour of the petitioner. As regards utilization of the project it is stated by O.P.no.2 that it can not be said that  the petitioner has misutilised the money which has been released in favour of the petitioner since the O.P.no.1 himself admits that one old machine has been installed. As such the dispute may be dismissed against O.P.no.2.

                Owing the above narrated situation of both the parties we have come across with the pleadings and documents filed from the side of both parties. After perusal of the record we are inclined to frame the following issues so as to come to our conclusion.

Issue No.1

                Whether the petitioner is a consumer as per section 2(d)(II) of C.P.Act 1986 so as to maintain the dispute in this Fora ?

Issue No.2

                Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps., if so the petitioner is entitled for compensation ?

Answer to issue No.1

                It is undisputed facts that the petitioner has been selected for a loan from the Bank of O.p.no.1 under P.M.E.G.P scheme and after completion banking formalities at the intial stage the O.P.no.1 has released Rs.8,000/- in favour of the petitioner towards Block capital. Subsequently as against the above Block capital of Rs.8,000/-, the petitioner has deposited Rs.250/- in the bank of O.P.no.1 on 10.06.2014 towards interest. As such the petitioner is a consumer only  of O.P.no.1  who is entitled to maintain the dispute against O.P.no.1 since payment of interest is consideration as per observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2001(1) CPR-7-SC.

Answer to issue No.2

                It is admitted facts that the petitioner is a beneficiary who has been selected by the selection committee for P.M.E.G.P loan  for starting a Decoticating unit having  the finance loan amount of Rs.5 lakh which includes  margine money of Rs.1,25,000/- . Accordingly the O.p.no.2 being the P.M.E.G.P sponsoring agency recommended the name of the petitioner to O.P.no.1 to sanction the loan of Rs.5 lakh in favour of the petitioner so as to enable her for staring  a ground nut decoticator  unit. The O.P.no.1 after receipt of the application completed all banking formalities and thereafter released Rs.8,000/- as Block capital and subsequently Rs.1,06,200/- in the name of the dealer Ritanjali Enterprises as Block capital so as to supply the materials including Decoticating machine to the petitioner for starting ground nut decorator unit. After release of the amount the O.P.no.1 inspected the project area on 03.09.14 and on verification it is observed that one old decoticating machine has been placed inside the project room with biscuit packet, rice packet ,oil packet. Subsequently on 16.01.14 there was a joint verification wherein it is observed that the old Decoticating machine was not available. On quarry the husband of the petitioner clarified that the Decoticator machine has been sent for repair  since the same was not  working . As regards the availability of oil packet ,biscuit packet and rice packet it is stated by the husband of the petitioner those items are kept for his own business. In the above circumstances the O.P.no.1 came to conclusion that the Block capital which has been released in favour of the petitioner has been fully mis-utilised  and accordingly on 17.10.14 has recalled the loan.

                After verification of the documents it is observed that:-

a.It is not disputed that soon after the name of the petitioner was selected by P.M.E.G.P scheme. She has completed successfully E.D.P Training sponsored by the Regional Industry Center  vide Annexture-D.

b.The retail invoice and affidavit vide Annexture-B and C clearly indicates that the dealer has supplied the materials including decoticating machine to the petitioner for starting the Decoticator project.

C.The O.P.no.2 in  the written version has stated that it can not be said that the petitioner has mis-utilised the loan since the O.P.No.1 himself admit that one old machine has been installed so also the O.P.no.2 has released Rs.1,25,000/- to O.P.no.1 in favour of the petitioner towards margin money of the project. The

petitioner in the complaint petition vide para-9 (b) has stated that she  is no way liable for the standard of the machine since the machine has been supplied by Ritanjali Enterprises . More over vide para-9(d) it has been stated by the petitioner that the O.P.no.1 has not inspected the other materials except the machine.

                In such situation we are in the considered view that in absence of any expert opinion regarding the standard of the machine  from the side O.P.no.1 , such contention of O.P.no.1 that the decoticating machine was old one can not be accepted as per law since the O.P.no.1 is not a technical person. Accordingly  onus lies with O.P.no.1 to prove the same by independent technical expert opinion that the Decoticating machine is old one in view of the observation of the Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2016(1)CLT-p-353-NC Magi Sign Vrs. Rijulize jacab )

                In addition to it the petitioner also has relied on some citations of Appellant Forums which are stated below:-

1.2000(1)CLT-677-SC (Vimal Ch.Grover Vrs.Bank of India-Annexture-A

                ‘ The petitioner is a consumer ‘.

2.2004-8-CLD-139(Rajsthan) Punjab National Bank Vrs.Salya Prakash   - Annexture-D

‘when on Bank recommendation an unemployed youth took training for self employment ,non disbursement of sanctioned loan to him would amounts to deficiency in service .”

3.111(2006)CPJ-29-NC-Bank of India and others Vrs.Chinmaya Bank and others –Annexture-E (Odisha Case)

“ Section 2(1)g –Banking and Financial services –loan –not honoring commitment –categorical assurance of appellant to release installment –same not released –complaint’s unit could not be started –Deficiency in service proved-State Commission rightly passed well reasoned order awarding compensation of Rs.10,000/- -Not liable to be interfered with .”

4.2015(3)CPR-910-NC-Ratnakar Bank Ltd and Others Vrs. Sundeep Kumar – Annexture-F

“Banking – Deficiency in service- once loan facilities had been duly sanctioned and complainant had incurred substantial either for obtaining credit facilities or pursuant to sanction of facilities ,appellant Bank could not have refused to disburse loan amount except for cogent and valid reasons-There is deficiency in service on the part of Appellant  bank in rendering services to complainant-Appellant bank directed to pay  Rs.2.5 lakh to complainant as compensation .”

5.11(1991) CPJ-344-Odisha(Ravindra kumar Das Vrs.Managing Director)

                “The Fora can examine deficiency in service and give direction in respect of financial services .”

6.11(1994)CPJ-397-Odisha (Upendranath Swain     Vrs.Tapo bank Housing –annexture-H

“Section 2(I)(g)-Deficiency in service financial Assistance-Complainant applied for financial Assistance. Amount deposited- Thereafter O.P nor rendered financial assistance-whether any deficiency in service on the part of O.P-Yes.”

7.1(1996)CPJ-196-N.C(Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Vrs.Krishna Fabric –Annexture-J

“Vide para-6-7 it is only just and proper that the remaining part of the loan is disbursed by the Appellant corporation to the complainant from the date of receipt of this order .”

                In view of the above observations of Appellant Forums as well as owing to the facts and circumstances of the present dispute since it is a loan under P.M.E.G.P scheme .We are in the opinion that the petitioner has executed agreement for availing the loan under P.M.E.G.P scheme and in case the petitioner mis utilized the loan then the law is well settled to recover the same. But without doing so as well as without releasing the working capital , the O.P.no.1 after inspection  on dt.16.10.14 without allowing further time to implement the  project by installing the machine has recalled the loan on 17.10.14 which is after the inspection dt.16.10.14 .Such action of O.p.no.1 is nothing but arbitrary, malafide capricious which though amounts to deficiency in service but  without drawing any adverse inference against O.P.no.1 we allow the dispute as per order below:-

 

O R D E R

                The dispute is allowed against O.P.no.1 (Branch Manager)Indian overseas Bank,Gariapur P.O/Dist.jajpur) and dismissed against O.P.no.2. The O.P.no.1 is directed to release the working capital in favour of the petitioner as per law  within one month after receipt of this order, failing which the O.P.no.1 shall be liable to pay Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) as compensation and cost of Rs.5,000/- (five thousand)  to the petitioner . 

        This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 25th day of April,2016 under my hand and seal of the Forum.