IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No.CC/ 56/2014
Date of Filing: 26.05.2014. Date of Final Order: 30.08.2016.
Complainant : Sujit Kumar Ghosh, S/O Sri Sasthi Charan Ghosh,
3, Brindaban Bagchi Lane, P.O. Cossimbazar Raj, P.S. Berhampore,
Dist. Murshidabad.
-Vs-
Opposite Party: Sr. Branch Manager, Allahabad Bank, Cossimbazar Branch,
48, Babul Bana Road, P.O.&P.S. Berhampore, Dist. Murshidabad.
Present: Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya …………………President.
Sri Samaresh Kumar Mitra ……………………..Member.
Smt. Pranati Ali ……….……………….……………. Member
FINAL ORDER
Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya, Presiding Member.
The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 praying for disbursing the loan of Rs.3.25 lacs to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.25,000/- and cost of Rs.10,000/-.
The complainant’s case, in brief, is that the OP Bank sanctioned proposed loan for carrying on Hardware business by letter dt. 26.3.14 agreeing to advance Rs.3.25 lacs out of the project opening business of Rs.5 lac with the condition of creating charge over the said premises appertaining to Plot No. 367 together with one shop room standing thereon by way of equitable mortgage and by pledging LIC policy covering sum assured of Rs.1,50,000/- . The complainant was asked to furnish report of valuation and title from approved lawyer. The complainant submitted those reports paying fees of Rs.4, 000/- and Rs.2000/- respectively. The compliant furnished conversation certificate of BL&LRO, Berhampore as per demand of OP-Bank incurring Rs.4000/- . He has spent Rs.50, 000/- towards renovation of shop room. Besides, the aforesaid co-lateral security the OP asked the complainant to deposit a sum of Rs.25, 000/- as term deposit towards security of loan. Getting assurance from OP-Bank he spent Rs. 85,000/- for preparation of documents, affidavit etc and he is ready to mortgage the premises and title deed. On 16.4.2014 the OP-bank Manager denied to disburse the loan amount of Rs.3.25 lacs with illegal demand for the security beyond the terms of sanction which he has already fulfilled by depositing term deposit of Rs.25,000/-. This denial is deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice. The complainant has already got Govt. subsidy of Rs.1.25 lack under BSKP Project and the OP being Govt. institution cannot ignore and neglect implementation of Govt. Scheme. For such illegal denial the complainant has filed this complaint for disbursement of loan. Hence, , the instant complaint case.
The written version filed by the OP-bank, in brief, is that the OP-Bank asked the complainant to complete all the procedure and also asked the complainant to give an affidavit by the owner of the shop-room in which the business is to be carried on as the business which is carried on is not under the ownership of the complainant. But the complainant with an ill-motive did not give such affidavit by the owner of the shop-room which the Bank required. So, the loan which was sanctioned for getting the subsidy was not disbursed by the Opposite Party Bank as all the conditions required by the Bank have not been fulfilled. The OP/Bank can only disburse the loan after the fulfillment of all conditions. The required conditions being not fulfilled the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the instant written version.
Considering the pleadings of both parties the following points have been raised for the disposal of the case.
Point for Consideration.
- Whether the case is maintainable in its present form and law?
- Whether the complainant has locus standi to file the instant complaint?
- Whether the case is barred by law of limitation?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for?
- To what other relief/reliefs the complaint is entitled to get?
Decision with Reasons.
Point Nos. 1 to 5.
All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience.
The instant complaint case is for disbursement of sanctioned loan of Rs. 3.25 lacs and compensation and cost of Rs.25, 000/- and Rs.10, 000/- respectively.
The complainant’s case is that the OP-Bank sanctioned loan of Rs.3.25 under BSKP loan for carrying on Hardware business for the project of Rs.5 lacs. As per instruction of the OP-Bank the complainant deposited Rs. 25,000/- towards term deposit and loan being assured by the Bank the complaint spent Rs.85,000/- towards documentation and Rs.50,000/- towards renovation of shop room. Further the complainant has already got subsidy amount of Rs.1.25 lacs from the Government but the bank has denied to disburse the sanctioned loan and demanded further security.
On the other hand the OP-Bank’s case is OP-Bank asked the complainant to complete all the procedure and also asked the complaint to give an affidavit by the owner of the shop-room in which the business is to be carried on as the business which is carried on is not under the ownership of the complainant. But the complainant with an ill-motive did not give such affidavit by the owner of the shop-room which the Bank required and for that So, the loan which was sanctioned for getting the subsidy was not disbursed by the Opposite Party Bank as all the conditions required by the Bank have not been fulfilled. The OP/Bank can only disburse the loan after the fulfillment of all conditions.
To prove the case the complaint has filed evidence on affidavit and the relevant documents in support of his case including loan sanctioned letter of the OP-Bank, purchase deed of the complainant, ROR, Valuation report, declaration of the borrower complainant with affidavit and other relevant documents.
The main case of the complaint as per petition of complaint is that on 16.4.2014 the OP-Bank has denied to disburse the sanctioned loan amount demanding further security beyond the term of sanction of loan. The complainant has not mentioned the amount for demand of further security categorically. Though, this is not the case of the OP-Bank.
The OP-Bank’s main case is that OP-Bank asked the complainant to complete all the procedure and also asked the complaint to give an affidavit by the owner of the shop-room in which the business is to be carried on as the business which is carried on is not under the ownership of the complainant. But the complainant with an ill-motive did not give such affidavit by the owner of the shop-room which the Bank required. So, the loan which was sanctioned for getting the subsidy was not disbursed by the Opposite Party Bank as all the conditions required by the Bank have not been fulfilled.
In this regard the ld. lawyer for the complainant has advanced argument that Mother has no obligation to submit affidavit.
On the other hand the Ld. Lawyer for the OP-Bank has advanced argument on this point that Deed which has been submitted shows that mother is the owner and the same is ejmali property where complainant was carrying on business and the shop room is in two parts
The settled principle is that the OP-Bank has discretion to disburse the sanction as per their satisfaction as to fulfillment of conditions.
The written version filed by the Op Bank there is clear averment that the OP Bank can only disburse the loan after the fulfillment of all conditions.
Further during hearing argument the Ld. Lawyer for the OP Bank has advanced argument that they are ready to disburse the loan amount, if the complainant fulfills the conditions as required.
In the written version filed by the Op bank they have clearly claimed affidavit by the owner of the shop room in which the business is to be carried on.
Considering the above discussions as a whole, we can safely conclude that the complainant is entitled to get the loan amount subject to fulfillment of the required above condition.
For non-fulfillment of the required condition, the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation.
Hence,
Ordered
that the Consumer Complaint No. 56/2014 be and the same is hereby allowed on contest in part.
on condition.
The complainant is directed to submit affidavit by the owner of the shop room in which the business is carried on as required by the OP Bank at once.
The OP-Bank is directed to disburse the loan amount to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receiving the above affidavit as required for sanctioning the loan in favour of the complainant, in default, the OP –Bank is to pay Rs.50 per day’s delay and the amount so accumulated shall be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.
Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgment / be sent forthwith under ordinary post to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.
Member Member President
