DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:   CC-  34  of 2017

 

Sri Satyajit Singha, 

S/O- Sri Santosh Lal Singha,

SinghPara, HGB Road, 

Agartala, West Tripura. .....…...Complainant.

 

      VERSUS

       

Union Bank of India,

Represented by its

Branch Manager,

Agartala Branch,

4, Hari Ganga Basak Road,

Agartala, West Tripura. .......... Opposite parties.

 

 

                      __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI A. PAL,

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant : Sri Bhabani Ranjan Bhattacharjee,    Advocate.

 

For the Opposite Parties : Sri Prabir Saha,

 Sri Biswanath Majumdar,

 Sri Diptanu Debnath,

 Advocates.    

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:   13.06.2017

 

J U D G M E N T

This case arises on the petition filed by one Satyajit Singha U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

2. Petitioner's case in short is that he applied for the bank loan under 'Prime Minister Employment Generation Programme'. The concerned bank, Union Bank of India favoured him loan of Rs.5 lacs. The bank also released Rs.25,000/- on 31.03.16. Thereafter complainant submitted the second quotation on 29.08.16 for the subsequent release of installment. But the O.P. bank did not release the amount and was delaying the process. Bank then told the complainant to furnish security of Rs.2 lacs for release of the subsequent amount. Complainant then brought to the notice of the branch manager that for loans below Rs.10 lacs security was not required. Petitioner approached the bank manager on 25.02.16, on 21.02.17 but the O.P. bank did not release the amount. As a result he could not run the business. Petitioner therefore prayed for compensation for the deficiency of service by the bank.

 

3. O.P. Branch Manager, Union Bank of India appeared, filed W.S denying the claim. It is stated that in the month of April, 2016 Assistant Manager of the concerned bank visited the shop premises of the complainant and found glass item was not purchased as per quotation given by him. Assistant Manager informed the complainant to purchase the stock and submit the estimate in the branch to facilitate further release of the loan. Thereafter the manager U.B.I visited his shop premises. He found that the complainant did not keep sufficient stock. Stock statement was not submitted. Bank manager never told to furnish security for Rs.2 lacs. The subsequent installment was not released as because petitioner did not act as per bank requirement. There was no deficiency of service by the O.P. 

 

4. On the basis of the contention raised by the  parties following points cropped up for determination:-

(I) Whether the petitioner violated the terms and condition of the bank loan agreement by not supplying the stock register or payment receipt by the item purchased as per quotation?

  (II) Whether there was deficiency of service by the O.P. and petitioner is entitled to get loan sanctioned money and compensation?

 

5. Petitioner produced the loan sanctioned letter, retail invoice dt. 29.08.16. Petitioner also produced the statement on affidavit of petitioner, Satyajit Singha.

 

6. O.P. UBI on the other hand  produced the photocopy of delivery of goods letter, loan application, post disbursement inspection report dt. 30.04.16, notice to Satyajit Singha. Post disbursement inspection series.

  O.P. also produced statement on affidavit of Animesh Ranjan Das, Assistant Manager.

 

7. On the basis of all the evidence on record we shall now determine the above points.

 

Findings and decision:

8. It is admitted and established fact that petitioner applied for the loan under PMEGP Loan. Application letter revealed this fact that application was made for  Rs. 4,75,000/-. We have gone through the sanction letter and found that Branch Manager has sanctioned loan for Rs.5 lacs towards Term Loan  under the said scheme for the financial year 2015-16.

 

9. We have gone through the retail invoice. Buyer was proprietor of M/S Santi Glass House. Invoice of M/S Chittaranjan Pictures was also produced. As per invoice total Rs.27,452/- was the cost of the glass item. Accordingly demand draft was issued for Rs.27,280/- by the Assistant Manager of the O.P. bank.

 

10. We have also gone through the letter dated 02.04.16. As per the letter Rs.27,280/- was paid to M/S Chittaranjan Pictures through the demand draft as issued by the O.P. bank. O.P. bank also admitted it in para 5 of the W.S stating that the amount Rs.27,280/- was released through demand draft.

 

11. O.P. bank stated that Rs.4,75,000/- was sanctioned but later it is appeared that actually amount of Rs.5 lacs was sanctioned. Terms and condition of the bank loan is not projected by the concerned bank to the petitioner. In the sanction letter also terms and condition not reflected the by the concerned bank. What are the requirement for the release of subsequent installment not clearly projected before us. From the first transaction it is clear that the items are to be purchased by the petitioner and payment will be made by the O.P. to the seller. In the sanction letter it is only written that loan will be released subject to fulfillment of our formalities. What is the bank formalities not clearly stated. From the notice it is revealed that the quotation for purchasing items is to be purchased from the shop and thereafter on inspection of the stock the installment will be released. 

 

12. Petitioner stated that quotation for Rs.1,64,320/- was submitted before the O.P. bank on 04.04.16. Photocopy of quotation which was submitted before the bank authority also produced. Bank authority remained silent in respect of receipt of this quotation. Petitioner also produced the computer generated Master Circular in the matter of lending to Micro, Small & Medium Enterprise Sector. In that circular it is written that bank are advised not to accept collateral security up to Rs.10 lacs under PMEGP. Banks are advised to go through good track record of the financial record of MSE units criteria for giving loan should be on the evaluation of their field staff. Petitioner produced the quotation for glass item for Rs.1,64,320/-. But second installment was not released. Evaluation report of field staff not produced by O.P. bank.

 

13. According to the petitioner O.P. bank manager prayed for Rs.2 lacs additional guarantee for release of the second installment. But it was not as per the terms and condition of the bank loan. O.P. bank manager further denied it. O.P. in the post disbursement report dated 30.04.16 written that petitioner did not purchase new glass items as per estimate given by him. Sufficient stock was not found in the shop. It was informed to purchase stock and submit the money receipt in the branch otherwise further disbursement will not be completed. In that letter loan outstanding written Rs.2905/-, purpose of the loan- business of glass photo frame & binding. Then notice was given on 2.05.16 stating that sufficient stock not found in the shop. Thereafter another post disbursement report, Assistant Manager informed that loan outstanding was Rs.1,25,000/-, the shop was found closed condition. They failed to communicate through phone. It is also written that though the party has submitted bill vouchers for the purchase of glass but the stock could not be verified as it was closed. In the post disbursement report dated 16.03.17 it is written that outstanding loan was Rs.1,25,000/-. They visited the shop but it was found closed. Telephonic contact was also not possible. From all these post inspection report it is found that without giving any notice surprise visit was made by the Assistant Manager. From the report it is also found that bill voucher for the purchase of the glass item was submitted by petitioner. But as the stock was not verified so outstanding loan amount Rs.1,25,000/- was not released. 

 

 14. The Assistant Branch Manager stated that one Papiya Sen of their bank physically visited the shop of the complainant on 30.04.16 and found that new glass items was not purchased by the petitioner. That Papiya Sen was not examined before the court. Accordingly the Assistant Manager asked the complainant to purchase stock and submit the money receipt. According to him no material was purchased by the complainant and fraudulently wanted release of second installment.

 

15. O.P.W. also stated that General Manager and Assistant Manager jointly made visit on  28.03.17 and found the shop premises closed. Nowhere it is stated that any written communication was made with the petitioner. Without release of the second installment how items will be purchased not clarified. The O.P. bank itself would pay the amount directly to Chittaranjan Pictures as earlier done in respect of payment of Rs.27,280/-. Bill voucher was produced. Quotation was given but money not released for purchase of the glass items as per quotation. As the second installment money was not released so petitioner failed to purchase the items. 

 

16. Satyajit Singha, petitioner stated that he wrote letter to the Branch Manager of the O.P. Bank. RBI circular was shown but no response was given by O.P. bank. Complainant stated that  unless the items is purchased and payment is made the stock can not be registered and can not be shown to the O.P. After sanctioning the loan O.P. bank failed to give proper service to the petitioner who suffered & business failed. He could not run the business and open the shop as items are not purchased as per quotation given by him and produced before the O.P. bank. After release of the first installment O.P. bank stopped the  release of further installment. Fraudulent activities of the petitioner not established by the bank officials. 

 

17. From the careful scrutiny  of  the evidence as produced before us it is transpired that O.P. Branch Manager without assigning reason and projecting the terms and conditions of the loan failed to release the second installment for the purchase of the glass items. Therefore we can not say that terms and conditions were violated by the petitioner. O.P. bank manager failed to release  the 2nd installment and insisted for submission of stock register without releasing the amount. This is deficiency of service by the service provider bank manager. Petitioner therefore, is entitled to get compensation. Both the points are decided accordingly.

 

18. In view of our above findings over the two points deficiency of service by the bank manager is established. It is established that sanctioned loan amount was not released by the O.P. Bank without proper reason. We direct the Branch Manager to release the subsequent installment as per terms and condition to avoid further business loss of the petitioner. Petitioner is entitled to get compensation to Rs.30,000/- for his business loss and deficiency of service of the O.P. who made inordinate delay in releasing the sanctioned loan. The payment is to be made within one month, failing which it will carry interest @ 9% P.A.           

 

Announced.

 

 

SRI A. PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

 

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA SRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.