Orissa

Jajapur

CC/49/2014

Manjulata Dhal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager UBI Tauntora Branch - Opp.Party(s)

Sanatan Padhi

25 Jun 2015

ORDER

                                              IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

 

                                                                      Present: 1. Shri Biraja Prasad Kar, President,

                                                                                   2. Shri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                                  3. Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.                                                                                  

Dated the 25th day of June,2015.

                                                   C.C.Case No.49 of 2014

Manjulata Dhal, W/O Santosh Ku.Nayak

Vill. Badapal,P.O.Baniapal,

 P.S.Binjharpur,Dist. Jajpur .                                                       ……………..Complainant                                                                                               

                        (Versus)

1. Branch Manager, U.B.I,Tauntara Branch, At/P.O.Tauntara Branch

    P.S. Binjharpur,  Dist.Jajpur.

2. Field Officer,U.B.I,Tauntara Branch, At/P.O.Tauntara

    P.S. Binjharpur ,Dist.. Jajpur.                                                  ……………………Opp.Parties .                                                            .

 For the Complainant:         Sri S.Panda , Advocate.

For the Opp.Parties  :         Sri M.S. Mahunta, R.K.Jena, S.Mishra, Advocates .

                                                                                        Date of order :  25.06.2015.

MISS  SMITA  RAY, LADY MEMBER.

                        Deficiency in service is the grievance of the complainant.

                        The complainant being an un-employed  Lady wants to start a boiler firm after availing financial assistance from the O.Ps. The complainant submitted her application for the loan to B.M.U.B.I, Tauntara Branch, Jajpur. The B.M.U.B.I, Tauntara branch wrote a letter to the District Agriculture Officer showing their willingness to sanction the loan of the complainant and requested the D.A.O to send the proposal with subsidy. The D.A.O obtained the feasibility and project report from the Chief District Vetnary Officer ,jajpur. After receiving the feasibility and project report from C.D.V.O, jajpur the District Agriculture Officer vide his letter No.1179/ Agril.dt.22.10.2013 send the project proposal of the complainant amounting to Rs.13,24,000/- with a subsidy of 50% through APICOL to the Branch Manager U.B.I, Tauntara Branch for necessary finance as per the terms and conditions of the Bank.

The complainant in her turn submitted all relevant documents to the O.Ps. as per their requirement. But the O.Ps. refused to finance the boiler project and want an illegal gratification of Rs.1,00,000/- to which the complainant denied. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. the complainant filed this dispute with the prayer to direct the O.Ps. to finance her project amounting to Rs. 13,24,000/- and to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and harassment.

                        In support of the complainant’s case the complainant filed (i) the Xerox copy of  letter no.TAU/ADUN/327/13-14 dt.19.06.13 issued by the B.M.U.B.I, Tauntara in favour of D.A.O, Jajpur regarding the willingness to sanction the loan, (ii) Xerox copy of the letter dt.03.09.13 issued by the D.A.O, Jajpur to the District Veterinary Officer,jajpur, (iii) Xerox copy of the letter no.301 / dt.03.10.13 issued by the Block Veterinary Officer (Addl.Vet.Asst.Surgeon) Binjharpur in favour of C.D.V.O,Jajpur,(iv) zerox copy of letter no.2926 dt.10.10.13 of the C.D.V.O, Jajpur to D.A.O, jajpur and (v) zerox copy of the letter no.1179 dt.22.10.13 issued by D.A.O,Jajpur in favour of Branch Manager, UBI,Tauntara Branch which are marked as Exihibit-1,Exihibit-2,Exihibit-3,Exihibit-4and Exihibit-5 respectively.

                        On being noticed the O.Ps. have appeared through their advocates and filed their written version refuting the allegations made in the complaint petition . The O.Ps. in their written version have stated that the loan amount is Rs.13,24,000/- .As per terms and condition the petitioner shall deposit the primary security money and title deeds in order to enable the bank to sanction the loan. Prior to sanction of loan on 21.02.2014 the bank without inspected the spot. The O.Ps. found that the proposed land to offer for mortgage as primary security are defective title deeds. The O.Ps. also observed that the above proposal is not bankable. The O.Ps. are not agreed to with the proposal to disburse the loan amount. The petitioner is unable to deposit the margin money and primary security which was assured by the petitioner at the time of sanction of proposal through the office of the District agricultural Officer, jajpur. Add. Veterinary Asst, Surgeon Binjharpur on 03.10.2013 submitted the feasibility report which is not accept by the bank. The Add. Veterinary Asst. Surgeon has not gone to the spot for verification. He has reported the report in his office. The document submitted by the petitioner has not match with the feasibility report. Prior to the sanction of the loan the following requirements should be fulfilled by the petitioner and the bank should satisfy with it “ the entrepreneuse/ eligible organization shall apply to the bank branch for sanction of the project. The branch shall undertake KYC compliance .Pre-sanction inspection. Due diligence exercise and appraisal of the project ensure technical feasibility, commercial and economic viability of the project which include intergrity, honesty of the applicant. Aptitude experience of the applicant. Availability of infrastructure such as space, water, electricity etc, as per requirement of the project report. Availability of food medicines and other inputs etc. availability of veterinary aid facilities and insurance facilities. Market facility / tie-up arrangement. Adequacy of in cove generations from the project to meet the consumption needs to repay the bank dues.

                        The bank has discretion power to sanction the loan to the loanee. The bank money is the public money. Bank should to see the intent of the public. Considering all the facts the sanction of loan is not viable to the petitioner. Apart from that she has not fulfilled all the criteria to avail the loan. So the bank did not disburse the amount to and in favour of the petitioner as she is not entitled to. There is no negligence on the part of the O.Ps and hence the C.C. Case is liable to be dismissed.

                        The O.Ps. have not filed a single scrap of paper to substantiate their case .

                        On the date of hearing none appeared on behalf of the complainant and O.Ps. We have gone through their pleadings and documents available on record.

                        On perusal of the pleadings and documents it is clear that the complainant approached the O.Ps. for a  boiler firm loan and the O.Ps. wrote to the D.A.O regarding  their willingness to sanction the loan of the complainant and requested the D.A.O to send the proposal and subsidy. The D.A.O after obtaining the feasibility and project report from C.D.V.O send the same to the B.M,UBI for necessary finance.

                        The B.M,U.B.I bank refused to sanction the loan on the ground that the title deeds of the mortgage property submitted by the complainant are defective, the complainant was unable to deposit the margin money and primary security. The proposal was not bankable, the feasibility report submitted by the Addl.Vet.Asst. Surgeon , Binjharpur was not correct. The documents submitted by the complainant to the bank did not match with the feasibility report, the bank has discretion power to sanction the loan. The complainant did not fulfill all the criteria to avail the loan. Though the O.Ps. bank in their written version took so many reasons to repudiate the loan but the O.Ps. are unable to file a single scrap of paper to show their bonafideness.

                        Basing on the pleadings, documents available on record and circumstances of the case we are inclined to dispose of the case, without drawing adverse inference against the O.Ps. ,on the following directions.

1. The O.Ps. are directed to consider the loan of the complainant afresh as per the Bank’s terms and conditions.
2. The O.Ps. are directed to make all correspondences with the complainant by Regd. posts regarding the loan.
3. The complainant is directed to Co-operate the O.Ps. .

                                                O R D E R

                        Resultantly, the Consumer Complaint is disposed of on the aforesaid directions. No cost .  

                        This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 25th day of June  ,2015 under my hand and seal of the Forum.

                                                                                           

(Shri Biraja Prasad kar )                                                       (Miss Smita Ray)

     President.                                                                           Lady member.                                                                       

          .

                                                                          Typed to my dictation & corrected by me             

 (Shri Pitabas Moahnty)                             

          Member.                                                                    (Miss Smita Ray )

                                                                                  Lady member.