Mr. A.P. Mukundan, Advocate present on behalf of the revision petitioner-Indian Overseas Bank.  The revision petitioner has challenged concurrent orders of the fora below.

2.       The matter arises out of sanction of loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- by Khadi & Village Industries Commission (KVIC) in the year 2008.  Till the filing of the complaint in 2009, only a part of the loan was released and, as admitted in para-6 of the written response of the petitioner/opposite party before the District Forum, a sum of Rs. 1,81,500/- had remained un-disbursed.  In para-12 of the written response, the reason for this non-disbursal is explained in following terms:

          “Even though the opposite party was ready to release the entire loan amount, it could not do so as the second complainant was not ready to fulfill his obligations and submit quotations from authorized dealers of cameras with valid Sale Tax Registration Numbers.  Therefore it is clear that only the second complainant is at fault and not the opposite party as alleged in the complaint and the opposite party cannot be said to be negligent and there is no deficiency in the service rendered by the opposite party to the second complainant.”

3.       Learned counsel was specifically asked to point to any documentary evidence in support of the above statement if filed before the District Forum, e.g. letters addressed to the complainant by the revision petitioner or record of discussions with him or any document from the complainant conveying refusal/inability/unwillingness to produce quotations from the authorized dealers.  Learned counsel argues that no such evidence was placed before the fora below as it was for the complainant to produce evidence that he had submitted the required quotations. 

4.       Perusal of the records and consideration of the arguments of learned counsel, shows that the loan was meant to enable the respondent/complainant to set up a photo studio.  The sanction also had a component of Government subsidy of Rs. 1.25 lacs.  The case of the complainant before the fora below was that recovery of the loan was started even without complete disbursal of the sanctioned amount.  I fail to understand how a small business venture of this nature can acquire capability to voluntarily repay the required installments as alleged by opposite party, even before it is fully set up.  The State Commission has referred to it in para-3 of its order with reference to the claim of the Indian Overseas Bank that the second complainant i.e. the borrower had voluntarily remitted a sum of Rs.43,500/- towards repayment of monthly installments from June, 2008 onwards.

5.       Learned counsel for the revision petitioner seeks to rely upon the decision of this Commission in Krishna Conductors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Andhra Bank & Ors., reported in I (1992) CPJ 1767 (NC).  The matter arose out of failure of the bank to provide adequate and timely credit.  The National Commission has held as under:

          “The complaint is a jumbled and in a coherent mass of facts and the complainant has failed to establish precisely how and in what respect the opposite party bank failed to discharge its obligations to the complainant.  One thing, however, is clear that the Government of India has laid down the credit policy and the Reserve Bank of India has also laid down guidelines and the norms for the Banks in the matter of credit facilities to industries in general and the small scale industries in particular.  These are all in the nature of guidelines and it is left to the Banks to decide whether a particular case comes within the ambit of the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India, whether a particular party is eligible for concessions recommended by the Reserve Bank of India as these are matters in the commercial judgment of the Banks and the Reserve Bank of India cannot interfere with their judgment.  It is the Banks which have to take decisions as to the type and the volume of the credit facility to be extended, whether the security offered is adequate, whether a unit continues to be viable or has the potential for rehabilitation and therefore deserves credit assistance etc. from the bank.”

6.       In my view, the facts of the case under consideration stand on a different footing.  The issue is not whether the Bank has the right to decide whether the case of the complaint falls within the relevant guidelines or not.  The question is of admitted non-disbursal of a part of the loan already sanctioned.  There is nothing to substantiate the claim that the requirement of producing quotations from authorized dealers of cameras with valid Sales Tax Registration Numbers was the sole reason for the non-disbursal of the balance amount of Rs. 1.81 lacs.  Therefore, in my view the case of the revision petitioner cannot derive any support from the ruling cited above.

7.       I do not find any grounds either in the revision petition or in the arguments of the learned counsel, which could justify intervention of this Commission in exercise of powers under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The revision petition is held to be devoid of any merit and is dismissed as such.