PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER

This appeal has been filed by appellant against order dated 2.12.2014 passed by State Commission in Complaint No. 13/15 passed by Chain Singh Thakur Vs. Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank by which, complaint was dismissed.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/appellant is an unemployed person and for the purpose of starting his own business he applied under Prime Minister Employment Scheme along with Project Report under before Trade and Industry Centre, Raipur for opening Fly Ash Bricks Factory, but the OP/Respondent  demanded new project report on the ground that cost of the material was increased, therefore, the complainant submitted a new project report to the OP.  On 18.7.2011, the District Trade and Industry Centre sent letter no. 148 loan case no. 1213 and the sanctioned loan amount Rs.25,00,000/- in which subsidy of Rs.8,75,000/- was provided to the complainant because he was a scheduled tribe and directed to deposit Rs.1,25,000/- being 5%. As per the instruction of the OP on 2.9.2011 the complainant opened a saving account No. 268900010006672 with OP/Respondent Punjab National Bank, Branch Mainpur and deposited a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- with that branch. The OP has adopted slow procedure and has committed deficiency in service due to which the complainant was required to contact the Bank officer at many times because the Bank said that they have not received loan case, the complainant sent a letter through registered post to the General Manager, District Trade and Industry Centre, Raipur requesting him to obtain information regarding the case and send the information to the OP Bank. On 28.11.2011, the complainant moved an application before Public Information Officer, Punjab National Bank, Mainpur, District Gariyaband seeking information under Right to Information Act because the said case had been received by the OP on 22.8.2011. The complainant obtained a quotation from Swastik Works, Korba on 16.6.2012 and submitted the same before the OP in which price of the machine was mentioned as Rs.8,24,250/- expenses for installing electricity Rs.40,000/-.  On 13.10.2012, the OP Bank  gave cheque worth Rs.3,00,000/-to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant obtained No Objection Certificate from Gram Panchayat, Mainpur and he constructed shed and room. He incurred expenditure to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- for the said construction work, whereas the OP Bank gave only a sum of Rs.1,89,000/- to the complainant and remaining amount was not given by the OP Bank to him and the complainant himself borne Rs.1,00,000/- from his own for construction of additional shed. According to new project report for building and civil work a sum of Rs. 5,70,000/- for plant and machinery Rs.11,80,000/-, for Electric Installation Rs.4,50,000/-, and Rs.3,000/- as margin for working capacity was required totaling Rs.25,00,000/-, but the OP Bank had refused to give the said amount to the complainant.  Shri Suryanarayan Tamrakar, guardian of the complainant met with Circle Head Shri Panda and made him aware regarding the problem facing in the case and Shri Panda directed the Branch Manager that till August, 2012 any how the  factory of complainant namely Kunal Fly Brick should be started and the complainant made a plan to inaugurate his factory on 16.08.2012, but due to non-cooperation of the OP Bank the complainant could not start his plant and suffered irreparable loss.  Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before State Commission.

3.      OP resisted complaint and submitted that the distribution of the sanctioned loan is made by the bank as per the documents executed and as per the condition mentioned in the document and if after sanction of loan and after execution of the documents regarding loan the price of the material relating to the project is increased then the responsibility of bearing such expenses is of beneficiary and the bank is not responsible.  The OP bank has discharged its all duties promptly and punctually.  The complainant has constructed the shed at the place of project very belatedly, whereas he was required to complete the construction of the shed within 6 months from the date of sanction of loan i.e. 26.3.2012. Shri K.R. Sharma and Branch Manager of the OP inspected the spot and found that the complainant is not following the instructions of the Bank. For the security of place, there was no wall. The electricity connection was not taken for that place. In this situation the OP Bank sent a letter to the complainant on 13.4.2013 but even then the complainant has not taken any interest in this regard. As the complainant has not taken interest and has also not completed his part regarding the loan and as per instructions of the OP he has not performed his part therefore, the OP has not disbursed the installment. The OP is providing facility of loan as per guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India. In these guidelines it is also included that if the beneficiary is behaving which is not suitable then the Bank is duty bound not to distribute the amount.  When an adverse condition was depicted in the physical inspection, then the OP has not given next installment to the complainant and this act of the OP is as per the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India. Denying any deficiency on their part, prayed for dismissal of complaint.  Learned State Commission after hearing both parties dismissed complaint against which, this appeal has been filed.

4.      Heard learned Counsel for the appellant at admission stage and perused record.

5.      Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that learned State Commission has committed error in dismissing appeal by holding that complainant does not fall within purview of consumer and holding that OP was not deficient in releasing balance loan amount; hence, appeal be admitted.

6.      Perusal of para 2 of the complaint reveals that complainant pleaded that he is unemployed and for doing his own business he applied for loan for establishing fly ash bricks unit.  In whole of the complaint, he has nowhere pleaded that he applied for loan for establishing aforesaid unit for earning livelihood by means of self-employment which is essential ingredient for falling within purview of consumer under Section 2(1) (d) of C.P. Act.  Learned State Commission after referring judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court and of this Commission rightly observed that as complainant has not pleaded that loan was taken by him from OP for earning livelihood by means of self-employment, complainant does not fall within purview of consumer and rightly dismissed complaint.

7.      Learned State Commission further observed that complainant did not construct shed for establishing bricks factory and could not obtain electricity connection within stipulated time and complainant could not use money for which loan was sanctioned. OP has rightly stopped payment of remaining installments of loan to the complainant. When complainant failed to comply terms and conditions of loan sanctioning document, OP does not commit any deficiency in withholding rest of the loan installments and in the case in hand, OP has not committed any deficiency in dismissing complaint.

8.      I do not find any illegality in the impugned order and appeal is liable to be dismissed in limine.

9.      Consequently, appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed at admission stage.