1.       This first appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 13.2.2015 passed in CC No. 198 of 2000 by Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai whereby the State Commission disposed of the complaint by directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.3,95,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint i.e. 29.04.2000.

2.       The brief facts relevant for the disposal of the case are that the complainant is the Proprietor of M/s FAN Service Metallurgical Laboratory.  For the upgradation of his business, he planned to buy Direct Reading Emission Spectrometer (DRES) from M/s Belec, manufactured in Germany.  The complainant approached the officials of OP i.e. Bank of Maharashtra, Nashik (City Branch) in view of financial assistance and discussed the viability of the said project.  The OP assured for financial assistance and gave a green signal for the remittance of advance amount equivalent to 10% of the cost of the instrument to M/s Belec, Germany against the proforma invoice dated 27.3.98.  Accordingly, the complainant made remittance of 10% of the amount (i.e. Rs. 3.3 lakhs) through OP/Bank and also paid the necessary charges of OP for the said services.  The OP assured to open Letter of Credit (LC) through its Bank and grant the loan within short period to fulfil the contractual obligations between the complainant and M/s Belec, Germany.  The complainant wanted loan to purchase DRES worth of Rs. 40 lakh from M/s Belec, Germany through their Indian representative, M/s Scientific Instrument Services.  However, OP/Bank informed orally to the complainant that he may approach Maharashtra State Financial Corporation (MSFC) or some other bank for the loan and submit the sanction letter to the OP/Bank for the purpose of opening LC through OP/Bank.  Thus, OP wasted the valuable time of four months to inform the complainant, thus, due to negligent conduct of OP/bank, the complainant suffered financial loss.  It was alleged that the OP should have informed complainant about the conditions of opening LC during initial discussion, the OP delayed to convey its decision of non-sanction of loan.  Thus, it was deficiency in service from the OP/Bank.

3.       For the alleged deficiency and loss suffered by the complainant, a complaint was filed before the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (in short, ‘the State Commission’) claiming a compensation of Rs.19 lakhs under different heads. 

4.       The OP filed written version and submitted that the complainant failed to comply with the conditions for providing LC, also failed to pay 25% margin of loan amount and to provide unconditional undertaking from the loan sanctioning financial institute i.e. MSFC.  According to OP, the project was not viable, therefore, OP was not under obligation to issue LC.  It was not a deficiency in service.

5.       After going through the pleadings and evidence, the State Commission allowed the complaint and directed the OP to pay Rs.3,95,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum.           Being aggrieved by the order of State Commission, the OP/Bank of Maharashtra filed first appeal. 

6.       I have heard arguments from both the parties.  Mr. S. B. Singh, Learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant submitted that the complainant approached the OP/Bank with an intention to obtain financial assistance and discussed the viability of the said project with the officials of the OP.  The OP/bank showed interest in the said project and orally assured him about the financial assistance.  On the basis of assurance, complainant obtained IFC Code by paying Rs.5,000/-.   He further submitted that it was an oral assurance, loan was not sanctioned, thus, the complainant was not a consumer in the real sense.  The bank has the discretion to sanction the loan or not.  There was no deficiency in service, therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

7.       The argument advanced by the complainant himself, who was present alongwith his son.  He argued that there was delay of 44 days in filing the instant appeal by the OP/Bank.  It should not be condoned.  The OP has not explained the reasons for the said delay.  He drew my attention to the lethargic and irresponsible attitude of OP/Bank.  According to the him, Vakalatnama has been signed by four lawyers, one of them could have attended on the date of hearing.  He also submitted that inspite of severe hardship and sick condition of his mother, who was in ICU, he appeared on every date of hearing before this Commission by travelling from Nasik (Maharashtra).  Thus, OP is harassing the complainant unnecessarily and there are many complaints against the officers of the OP about irresponsible functioning, which were published in newspapers like ‘Times of India’.

8.       The complainant submitted that he is a consumer as per Consumer Protection Act, 1986 because the issue involved was not for the grant of loan, but it was for opening of LC.  He submitted that he was an account holder with the OP/Bank, wanted to import the machine, accordingly, approached and discussed about his project with the OP/bank officials.  After few days, the OP’s officials told the complainant that he should bring a loan sanction letter for equivalent amount from MSFC or from any other nationalized bank.  Accordingly, complainant brought the sanction letter of loan from MSFC.

9.       Regarding the delay in filing instant first appeal, I have perused the application for condonation of delay.  For the reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned.  It is an admitted fact that the complainant was engaged in the business of meteorological laboratory.  He had current account with the OP/bank.    The complainant discussed about the project of expansion of his laboratory, upon which, the OP had agreed to open LC but thereafter, it is surprising that how the OP had arrived to the conclusion that complainant’s project was not viable.  OP had not produced any cogent evidence or reasons in this regard.  It is pertinent to note that as per the requirement laid down by the OP, the complainant approached MSFC for loan. MSFC sanctioned the loan and addressed the letter of sanction dated 14.10.1998 to the OP.  After the said sanction, complainant approached the OP for opening of LC, but OP put one new condition to the complainant to bring unconditional undertaking from the MSFC to reimburse the payment against L/C.  The MSFC did not accept such condition of dual and subsequent liability, as sought by the OP/Bank.  This ultimately resulted into non-availability of LC.  Therefore, the complainant could not import the machine.  Thus, it caused forfeiture of the advance amount (Rs.3.3 lakh), which was paid by the complainant to M/s Belec Co. at Germany.  In my view, the complainant is a consumer because he was an Account holder of OP/bank.  He had paid processing fee for LC.  Without any valid explanation, the OP/Bank had arbitrarily concluded that the complainant’s project was not viable.  It appears as misuse of deliberate act and own discretion by the officials of OP/Bank.

10.     Considering the entirety, it was an uncooperative attitude of the OP/Bank towards the genuine customer.  It was an act of omission and dereliction in the duty on the part of OP/Bank, thus, the deficiency in service.

11.     On the basis of foregoing discussion, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the well reasoned order passed by the State Commission.  Accordingly, first appeal is hereby dismissed.  However, there shall be no order as to costs.