This appeal is directed against of the final order dated 31/12/2021 in CC No. 27/2019 filed by respondent against the appellant Bangiya Gramin Bikash Bank and others U/S 12 of CP Act, 1986.

The fact of the case in nutshell is that the complainant has submitted project papers before the OP No. 2 B.D.O. for granting of loan to his project under the scheme S.V.S.K.P. of Govt. The loan was granted by OP No. 2 on the basis of project submitted to the tune of Rs. 150,000/- and subsidy of Rs. 45,000/- on 28/06/2017 and the sanctioning order was sent to appellate bank for disbursement of loan on 19/12/2017. The OP No. 3 also by dint of that letter, sanctioned the subsidy amount Rs. 45,000/- in favor of the complainant on 23/11/2017 and transferred the subsidy fund to the bank account of OP No. 1.

The complainant is several occasions met with the bank officials for disbursement of loan amount after deduction of marginal amount and requested to transfer subsidy amount to his account.

But the bank did not discharge the obligation so this case.

The complaint was admitted in due course and notice was sent to all Ops who has contested the case by WV separately.

The OP No. 1 (appellate) in the pleading contended that on the basis of sanctioned letter of loan by OP No. 2 (B.D.O), the appellant requested the OP No. 2 by latter dated 28/06/2017 to release the subsidy amount in favour of bank and expressed the willingness on the part of bank to sanction bank loan in favour of the complainant.

But on the basis of circular of the H.O. of the bank dated 12/12/2017 vide circular number "THE BRANCHES WITH COMBINED LEVEL OF NPA+PNPA OF 50% AND ABOVE OF THE TOTAL LOANS & ADVANCES (LIST ENCLOSED), HEREIN AFTER CALLED THE SPECIFIED BRANCHES, ARE ADVICED TO RESTRICT SANCTIONING AND DISBURSING CRREDIT" and directed the concern branches for strict compliance of the same. That immediately the OP. No 1 hang a notice in the Branch premises on 15.12.2017 and communicated the matter to their customers through said notice. That due to aforesaid embargo the OP. No. 1 was unable to disburse any loan save and except issuance of KCCs and renewal of existing KCCs, existing SHGS, Loan against Term deposits, NSCs, KVPs, LIPS, LICS.

That due to the aforesaid embargo, the OP No.1 unable to process/disburse the bank loan amount to the complainant and complainant was well aware about such embargo of bank but cleverly suppressed the same and it is unfortunate that even after knowing all facts and circumstances, the complainant has filed this case with some concocted story to get wrongful gain. Thus, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief from the opposite party No.1 and the instant complaint petition is liable to be dismissed.

The OP No. 2 and 3 in their WV contended that on the basis of project submitted by the complainant under the scheme S.V.S.K.P. The project was approved and loan proposal was sent to OP No. 1 who on enquiry found visibility of project sent e sanction letter of loan to OP No. 2 and requested to release the subsidy amount in the account of the bank.  

Accordingly, the Op No.3 on the basis of recommendation letter of appellate bank, had transferred the subsidy fund to the A/C of appellate bank and requested the bank to release the subsidy amount in favour of the loanee within one month as per SVSKP rules.

Ld. Forum after receiving documentary evidences from both sides and hearing argument came to a conclusion though there was an embargo in sanctioning loan in favour of complainant by order of the higher authority, the bank had latches as it was not daily communicated to the complainant in due time casing severe harassment to him/her.

So, an award as compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-was passed in favour of the complainant which is challenge in the appeal on the grounds that the observation of the Ld. Forum was bad in law, erroneous, defective, having no appreciation of actual facts and circumstances.

The complainant as principal respondent has contested the appeal through Ld. Advocate Mr. D. Bhowmik after receiving the copy   of notice of memo of appeal.

The Ld. Advocate of the appellant Mr. P. Joarder has conducted the hearing on behalf of appellant. Both the sides furnished WNA.

 The appeal was heard in presence of Ld. Advocate of both sides.

                                    Decision with reason

Admitted position is that the complainant as per Govt. scheme S.V.S.K.P, submitted project cost before the competent authority B.D.O. who approved the scheme and sent it to the appellant bank to enquire about the viability of the scheme and to submit report. Bank(appellant) after inspecting the scheme sanctioned the loan and requested B.D.O. and S.H.G. to release subsidy amount in the account of the bank.

Accordingly, the office of OP No. 3 transferred the subsidy amount to the account of the bank through the process of ECS before the circular of embargo came into existence. But the fund transfer letter was communicated to the bank after the embargo circular already communicated to the bank dated 15/12/2017.

So, the question is whether the bank was compelled to abandon the entire project and scheme of the already sanction loan.

Ld. Advocate of the appellant at the time of hearing mentioned though the SHG (OP NO. 3) and B.D.O. (OP NO. 2) transferred subsidy amount to the banks account for disburse of the loan and subsidy in favour of the complainant before the embargo decision was taken by the higher authority of the bank. But unfortunately, the official communication of said subsidy transfer was issued on the part of the Govt. officials when the embargo circular was already communicated to the bank and due to one month already elapsed since the subsidy fund transfer, as per rule bank had to return back the subsidy amount along with interest as per rule to the Govt. So, the bank has no occasion to go on disbursing the loan to the complainant. 

After going through all-material documents produced in this case, it has become crystal clear that as per rules of the SVSKP scheme, the bank has already refunded the entire subsidy amount and interest to the Govt. as loan could not be disbursed in favour of the complainant. So, the bank had no malintention to make a profit with the subsidized amount. Rather the bank intended to follow the embargo guidelines formulated by the higher authority to lower down the responsibility of N.P.A.

But here in this case if we follow the SVSKP scheme the process of initial of loan disbursement methods and transfer of subsidy and sanction of the loan on proper inspection of the scheme was already completed before the embargo circular came into existence on 12.12.2017, communicated to the bank on 15.12.2017. So the bank without any valid reason withheld the process of disbursement of loan for which the ultimate worst sufferers were the loanee who expected a financial assistance for their survival and to earn their livelihood under the govt. scheme.

Bank had ample opportunity to disburse the loan and utilize the subsidy already promoted by the end of the govt. authority.

More over before embargo circular, the bank had already sanctioned the loan.

So, no irregularity is detected in the order of Ld. Forum. Ld. Forum had intended to extend some reliefs of the worst sufferers who could not enjoy the benefit of the scheme introduced by the govt. as welfare measure to words the downtrodden. Thus, the appeal fails.

                                          Hence it is ordered,

That the instant appeal be and the same is dismissed on contest without cost. If the appellant bank a per order of Ld. Forum pays Rs. 10,000/-to the complainant within 45 days from this day, no further interest will be carried on. Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost and to be communicated to the Ld. DCDRC, Dakshin Dinajpur.