Present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date has been filed by Harpreet Kaur complainant against the opposite parties i.e. Kapurthala Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. through its Managing Director, and also its Manager Branch office Ibrahimwal, Tehsil Bholath, District Kapurthala seeking direction against the opposite parties to release her sanctioned loan of Rs.25000/- and also monetary compensation on account of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.<br /> 2. The brief facts in the complaint lie in narrow compass. Complainant approached opposite party No.2 i.e. Manager, Kapurthala Central Co-operative Bank Branch office Ibrahimwa, Tehsil Bholath District Kapurthala for seeking financial assistance for starting a business. He pursuaded her to open a karyana shop and they can provide loan for the amount of Rs.25,000/- under C.C.T. limit. She moved an application on 10/6/2007 for business loan after completing necessary formalities to which opposite parties demanded no due certificate of other bank which was made available to the opposite parties and also two guarantors to the bank for security of the loan amount. Besides she has also tendered her personal bond on empty and signed stamp paper. It is however, alleged that opposite party Bank demanded amount of Rs.3000/- as illegal gratification out of which she paid Rs.1000/- to the opposite party on 18/6/07 but opposite party No.2 still insisted on payment of balance amount of Rs.2000/- which she could not pay. She inquired about fate of her loan on 14/7/07 and was informed that loan has been sanctioned in her favour and that she asked opposite party No.2 to provide loan but was again coerced to part with balance amount of Rs.2000/- and thereafter flatly refused to advance loan. Therefore, failure to release sanctioned loan by the opposite party without any justifiable cause amounts to deficiency in service for which she is not only entitled to loan amount but also monetary compensation.<br /> 3. Opposite parties appeared and controverted allegations of the complainant and resisted her claim. Preliminary objection has been raised that present complaint is misconceived and that complainant is not a consumer of the opposite party Bank. On merits this fact is admitted that complainant approached opposite party Bank at its branch situated at Village Ibrahimwal for advancement of loan for expansion of her Karyana business and she was apprised that she will have to furnish copies of trading profit and loss Account for the last three years besides this, she will also have to submit the proof of means of income for herself and that of her guarantors. Besides this she will have to obtain no due certificate from the banks /financial institutions situated in the nearby area. An appraisal for advancement of loan was conducted by the Assistant Manager of the Branch who visited the premises of the complainant and found that complainant was possessing stock of karyana for amount of Rs.800/- to Rs.1000/-During independent investigation in the village, it was found that complainant and her husband were not maintaining financial discipline and they lacked credibility. The jusband of the complazinant is already a defaulter of Primary Agricultural Development Bank and has not cleared the loan alongwith interest taken by him on 17/8/2000. Besides this, the proposed guarantor namely Narinder Singh son of Madha Singh resident of village Ibrahimwal was also a defaulter of Co-operative Society, Ibrahimwal. No personal bond on empty self signed stamp paper worth Rs.20/- was ever tendered by the complainant. Therefore, opposite party Bank was well justified in refusing to sanction loan amount to the complainant as she failed to fulfill the mandatory formalities and also having the lack of financial credibility. The allegation of illegal gratfication for sanction of loan amount against the opposite party has been stoutly refuted. . Therefore, there is no deficiency in banking service on th part of opposite parties as it wanted to amply safe guard the public money.<br /> 4. In support of her version complainant harpreet Kaur produced in evidence affidavits and documents Ex.C1 to C8.<br /> 5. On the other hand opposite parties produced in evidence affidavit Ex.R1 and letters Ex.R2 to R6.<br /> 6. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused ocular as well as documentary evidence on the record. Learned counsel for the complainant has contended before us that refusal of the opposite party i.e. Manager, Kapurthala Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Branch office Kapurthala to sanction loan amount of Rs.25000/- after having filed the requisite documents and fullfilling the requirements amounts to deficiency in banking service for which she is not only entitled to mandatory direction to release of loan amount but also monetary compensation. On the other hand it has been counter argued by learned counsel for the opposite parties that opposite party Bank is perfectly justified to refuse the sanction of loan amount as the complainant/applicant had not only failed to fulfill the requirements for eligibility of loan amount but also produced the proposed guarantor as the defaulter of the bank loan. So there is no deficiency in banking service.<br /> 7. We have considered rival contentions of counsel for the parties. We do not find any merit in the contentions of learned counsel for the complainant. Dalip Singh Branch Manager of the opposite party Bank has admitted that complainant was apprised of requirements for the loan amount that she will have to furnish the copies of trading profit and loss Account for the last three years besides she will have also to submit proof of means of income for herself and that of the guarantor and further No Due certificate from the banks/financial institutions. An appraisal for advancement of loan was conducted by the Assistant Manager of the Branch who visited the premises of the complainant and found that complainant was possessing stock for Karyana for an amount of Rs.600/- to Rs.1000/-. It was also revealed that the borrower and her husband were not maintaining financial discipline and lack credibility. The husband of the complainant was already a defaulter of Primary Agricultural Development Bank and had not cleared the loan alongwith interest taken by him on 17/8/2000. Besides her the proposed guarantor was also defaulter of Co-operative Society Ibrahimwal. The two documents Ex.R3 and R4 have been produced in evidence by the opposite party Bank to corroborate the lack of financial credibility of these persons certified by Secretary, The Ibrahimwal C.A.S.S.Ltd. Ibrahimwal, Kapurthala . She was also informed vide letter dated 21/7/2007 Ex.R6 for producing balance sheet of profit and loss of trading account and also no due certificate from the other hanks/institutions so as to enable the opposite party Bank to sanction the loan amount . Opposite party Bank has refuted the allegations of illegal gratification demanded by any official/officer of the Bank for sanctioning of the loan. Therefore, we cannot be impervious to the requirements sought by the bank for its fulfillment by the complainant for sanction of the loan because loan amount is a public money which has to be amply safeguard by the bank and for later on smooth recovery. Therefore, non fulfillment of the requirements by the complainant and subsequent refusal of the bank to advance the loan amount does not amounts to deficiency in banking service on the part of opposite parties.<br /> In the ultimate analysis of aforesaid discussion, finding no merit in the complaint, same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. <br /> Let certified copies of judgment rendered be supplied/despatched to the parties without any unnecesszary delay and thereafter file be consigned to record room.<br /> <br /> Announced : ( Surinder Mittal ) ( A.K. Sharma )<br /> Member President.