SRI NAYANANANDA DASH,MEMBER:-

                          The case relates to alleged deficiency of service on the part of O.P. i.e. United Bank of India,Angulai branch towards the complainant namely Mrs. Kiranbala Pradhan by not releasing Rs.4,00,000/- towards loan alongwith amount of rs.57,000/- towards unnecessary expenditure incurred on the oral version of the OP and Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony because of delay in completion of project.   

                  Brief facts of the case is that the complainant had applied for a loan for establishment of a diary unit under DED Scheme( 2 + 2) and the said scheme was sponsored by the CDVO,Kendrapara and the Block Veterinary Officer,Marsaghai forwarded the scheme to UBI,Angulai, the Project cost being Rs.1,36,000/-. Accordingly the complainant did everything as advised by the OP including bringing valuation certificate of her property from the firm of Bhubaneswar namely Er. Subash Ch.Sabat, as ISO certified company on the advise of OP. She brought the legal opinion on the property in the name of her husband from the lawyer of the bank. The legal report regarding the property to be mortgaged including no objection certificate was not issued early and the lawyer delayed the submission of such report and finally on dt.07.04.14 the report was submitted to the bank. The complainant had to pay Rs.17,000/-  to the ISO certified firm M/s. Sabat Associate for the valuation report and Rs.5,000/- to the Bank’s lawyer for the legal report. By the time the report was submitted the financial year 2013-14 has passed. Therefore, as per complainant’s version, the complainant wanted to avail the loan which was a subsidy linked scheme for the year 2014-15 which was a enhanced scheme of Rs.4,00,000/- for 8 cows on the advice of the Bank Manager. The Bank Manager verbally agreed to finance  for the Project of Rs.4,00,000/- as per the version of the complainant but  did not proceed to finance the said loan. On dt.10.07.14 the complainant wrote to the Bank Manager to finance without any delay for the revised scheme for Rs.4,00,000/-, but without any result. Finally there was a notification for National Lok Adalat  be held on dt.06.12.14.  The Bank Manager being on pressure for Lok Adalat, pressurized the complainant to avail the loan for DED Scheme for 2013-14 i.e. for Rs.1,36,000/- and released Rs.32,400/- to the complainant as 1^st phase for the construction of shed on dt.29.11.14. Thereafter the Bank has not released any amount. Meanwhile the prices of materials for construction had increased for which the construction of the shed could not be completed and as per  the complainant, he had already spent Rs.50,000/- for the construction of shed but it was inadequate and remained incomplete. The complainant’s request to finance for the scheme for 2014-15 for Rs.4,00,000/- was not considered despite several personal meeting with the Bank Manager. Hence, the complainant has filed this present case with the Forum.

              On the other hand, the OP-Bank has denied the allegations leveled against it by the complainant. The OP-Bank states that the complainant in order to avail a bank loan for diary farming under the DED scheme had contacted the Block Veterinary Officer,Marsaghai and also the CDVO,Kendrapara. The proposal was sponsored by the CDVO to the bank. Accordingly the bank wrote letters to the bank advocate to scrutinize the relevant documents of immovable property in the name of Niranjan Pradhan(husband of the complainant) for the purpose of mortgage for the purpose of loan for Rs.1,36,000/-. Thereafter the bank advocate advised the complainant to produce different documents and also E.C. for 30 years of the said property. Being unable to get the E.C. the complainant requested the bank’s advocate to get the E.C. for herself which the advocate did and also gave the legal opinion for which he received Rs.2000/- for obtaining E.C.,typing charges etc.. Subsequently, the complainant made representation to the OP-Bank to disburse  the  amount  for  construction of cow shed which was done without any delay. The bank after maintaining all formalities and procedures sanctioned net loan for Rs.1,22,400/- on dt.26.11.14, the project cost being Rs.1,36,000/- after deducting margin of 10 per cent. The OP-Bank disbursed Rs.32,400/- on dt.29.11.14 being the 1^st phase for construction of cow shed through her a/C No.0576010127486. According to OP-Bank, after availing Rs.32,400/-, the complainant did not utilize the amount for the construction of cow shed which was revealed during inspection of the spot on dt.30.12.14 by the bank. Again on dt.10.04.15, the Manager alongwith additional veterinary Asst.Surgeon, Marshaghai, during joint inspection, found that there was no cow shed but only foundation has been excavated and no further work was done. Therefore, the OP-Bank could not disburse the rest loan amount as amount already disbursed was not utilized by the complainant.

                 Looking at the version of both the parties and the documents produced before us, it is a fact that a loan was sanctioned for establishment of a diary unit under DED Scheme(2 + 2 cows ) the project cost of which was Rs.1,36,000/-, being sponsored by the Veterinary Officer,Marsaghai. The said loan was sanctioned on dt.26.11.14 with different conditions for a net amount of Rs.1,22,400/- and the sanction letter was accepted by the complainant with different conditions like Project Cost, margin, net loan amount, mode of disbursement, security, repayment etc. Accordingly, the bank disbursed the 1^st phase for Rs.32,400/- through her a/c on dt.29.11.14 for construction of cowshed. After accepting the sanction letter for a loan with a project cost of Rs.1,36,000/- on dt.26.11.14 and receiving the 1^st phase of disbursement on dt.29.11.14 for construction of cowshed, the complainant wants that the bank should finance for Rs.4,00,000/- for DED Scheme  including 8 cows which was not even sponsored by the Veterinary Deptt. nor sanctioned by the bank. If that was the case, the complainant should not have accepted the sanction for  Rs.1,36,000/- project  cost  with 2 + 2 scheme  on  dt.26.11.14 and should have waited for the enhanced scheme for Rs.4,00,000/- after getting it sponsored by the Veterinary Deptt. to the bank in her name. It is clear from the documents produced before us that the loan of Rs.4,00,000/- which the complainant is asking for was never sanctioned by the bank nor sponsored by the veterinary deptt. The complainant has not produced any evidence regarding the bank’s alleged verbal advice for Rs.4,00,000/- loan except a photo copy of project proposal for the year 2014-15 which was sent through the Regd. Post on dt.27.05.14(Annexure-7). It is well settled principle that granting of a loan is at bank’s discretion. The same is substantiated vide case Niwas Spinning Mills Ltd.-Vrs- Bank of India,111(2003) CPJ 190(NC), and vide Case No.Velappan Nair,Manager, K.S.C.B.V.K.P.Suran 111(2003) CPJ 181: 2003(3) CPR-44(NC). The National consumer Disputes Redressal  Commission vide M/s. Bumy’s Gift and Novety Centre-Vrs-Punjab and Sind Bank(First Appeal No.137 of 1992- decided on dt.27.09.1993 has said that the final decision whether or not to lend or advance any funds to any party rests with the bank only.

            Regarding refusal by the bank to further disburse the amount after 1^st phase for construction of cowshed, while the OP-Bank has stated that the 1^st phase already disbursed remains unutilized for which no further disbursement has been made, the OP has filed  two field inspection reports one by the Manager on dt.30.12.14, and another with Addl. Veterinary surgeon on dt.10.04.15 which is conducted during pendency of the present proceeding,  both revealing that no cowshed has been erected but only excavation work for foundation is done. This is a matter which should be settled through a tripartite meeting between the OP-Bank, the complainant borrower and the government ‘Agency’ i.e. the CDVO,Kendrapara or his authorized representative within the terms of loan sanctioned. Apart from our aforesaid observation, it is equally clear that complainant being a lady has  made  her  best  effort by mortgazing and providing collateral securities and spending a good money for preparation of the loan documents and legal opinion required for sanctioning of the said loan. Further, considering the factual aspect of the case the date of presentation of application for loan/project proposal duely sponsored by CDVO and the date of sanction of the project and release of the 1^st phase of loan amount, there is a gap of more than six months. It can be well presumed that the cost of material, labour for construction of the cowshed may be escalated in a gap of six months.

                So, it will be well and good if the OP-Bank come forward to assist a lady enterprenure whose intention is to make her family economically sustainable by setting a dairy firm. It appears to us that to complete  her cowshed the complainant is facing financial difficulties, it may be for spending of money for approval of the said loan or for escalation in the cost of materials or labours, whatsoever the reason may be. Therefore, it will be better proposition if some arrangement can be worked out in the tripartite meeting already mentioned above. It should be estimated what amount exactly will be required for the completion of the cowshed and the amount should be disbursed to the complainant and on completion of the construction of cowshed further disbursement should be made to the complainant. The details as mentioned above should be finalised in the tripartite meeting. The order is to be carried out within one month of receipt of the order. It is further directed that complainant will get her balance sanctioned loan dues after completion of the cowshed as per the DED Scheme. The initiative for holding such a meeting shall be taken by the OP-Bank.         

                                                                                        O R D E R

                Having observations reflected above, the complaint is allowed in part. The order is to be carried out within one month of receipt of this order, deviation in any manner by any of the parties will carry Rs.50/- per day for the delayed period.

                                No order as to cost.  

                Pronounced in the open Court, this the 31^st  day of August,2015.