Punjab

StateCommission

A/11/1727

Yadwinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Neelam Goyal

30 Apr 2015

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

                                     

(1)               First Appeal No.1727 OF 2011

 

                                                          Date of Institution: 29.11.2011  

                                                          Date of Decision:  30.04.2015

 

 

Yadwinder Singh S/o Gurnam Singh resident of House No.B-VI-21, Jawanda Patti, Barnala, District Barnala.

                                                                                                                                                                             …..Appellant/Complainant

         

                                      Versus

 

Punjab National Bank, Main  Branch, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Road, Barnala, District Barnala through its Branch Manager.

 

                                                          …..Respondent /opposite party

 

 

         

First Appeal against order dated 07.10.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Baranala

Quorum:-

 

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

          Shri. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member

          Shri Harcharan Singh Guram, Member.

         

Present:-

 

          For the appellant                            :  Sh.Sarwinder Goyal, Advocate

          For the respondent               :  Sh.H.S. Bhatia, Advocate

          . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

                                                AND

(2)                        First Appeal No.1733 of 2011

 

 

                                                          Date of Institution: 01.12.2011  

                                                          Date of Decision:           30.04.2015

 

 

Punjab National Bank, a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 having its Head Office at 7- Bhikhaji Cama Place, New Delhi and Branch Office, amongst others, at Main Branch Barnala, Punjab.

 

                                                          …..Appellant/Opposite party

         

                                      Versus

 

 

Yadwinder Singh S/o Gurnam Singh resident of House No.B-VI-21, Jawanda Patti, Barnala, District Barnala.

                                                                  

                                                          ….Respondents/Complainant

 

         

First Appeal against order dated 07.10.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Baranala

Quorum:-

 

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

          Shri. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member

          Shri Harcharan Singh Guram, Member.     

Present:-

 

          For the appellant                             :  Sh.H.S Bhatia, Advocate.

          For the respondent               :  Sh.Sarwinder Goyal, Advocate

 

………………………………………………………………………………

 

J. S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

                                     

          By this common judgment, we intend to dispose of the above referred two first appeals together, as they can be conveniently disposed of together, because they have arisen out of the same order dated 07.10.2011 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Barnala. First Appeal No.1727 of 2011 has been filed by the appellant (the complainant in the complaint) against the respondent of this appeal (the opposite party in the complaint), challenging order dated 07.10.2011 of District Consumer Forum Barnala whereas second connected First Appeal No. 1733 of 2011 has been filed by the appellant (the opposite party in the complaint) against the respondent (the complainant in the complaint), challenging the order dated 07.10.2011 of District Forum Barnala awarding the consolidated amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant.

2.      The complainant Yadwinder Singh has filed the present complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OP on the averments that complainant who is a small tailor-master, earns his livelihood by means of self-employment. The complainant wanted to expand his business and applied for a loan of Rs.10 lac to the General Manager, Industrial Department, Malerkotla. The complainant received a letter dated 08.12.2010 to appear an interview before D.C Office Barnala. The complainant appeared for interview on 08.12.2010 before D.C Office Barnala and his loan was sanctioned and he was referred to OP Bank on 29.01.2011 for this purpose. The complainant visited OP/Bank on 29.01.2011 intimating that he belong to OBC Category in as much as he has been sanctioned loan of Rs.7 lac i.e., Rs.5 lac for construction purpose and Rs.2 Lac for working capital being an OBC candidate, with subsidy of 25%. The OP visited the site of the complainant and advised the complainant to construct one shed, to take one NRS electricity connection, to have EDP training and to have an insurance of Rs.30,000/- through OP for the said business. The complainant constructed shed by spending an amount of Rs.80,000/- thereon and obtained NRS Electricity Connection on 04.02.2011 by depositing a security of Rs.1590/- and also received two week EDP training at Patiala by spending Rs.5000/- and also purchased insurance policy of Rs.30,000/- by paying the premium of Rs.10,000/-. The OP bank obtained blank stamped papers of Rs.50/- each bearing nos.1545, 1546, 1547 dated 02.03.2011 from the complainant. OP asked the complainant to obtain the quotations of machinery and other material for this purpose, so that loan amount be paid to the supplier of the said items. The complainant received a work order from Mr. Pawan Kumar on 06.03.2011 under the hope of starting business and complainant was to pay Rs.7500/- as penalty in case of default in supplying the uniforms in time to Mr. Pawan Kumar. The complainant could not start his business because the OPs had not disbursed the loan amount to him despite completing the requisite formalities by him. The complainant has, thus, filed the complaint against the OP directing them to pay the amount of Rs.96740/- to complainant for the expenses incurred by the complainant on the interest @ 18% per annum, to pay Rs.7500/- as penalty for non-supply of goods to Pawan Kumar, from whom the complainant  the order for stitching of uniforms, besides Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for his mental harassment and Rs.22,000/- as costs of litigation.

3.      Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply raising preliminary objections that complainant has no cause of action to file the complaint. The complaint is frivolous, vexatious and is liable to be dismissed. The jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum is barred, in as much as the complainant  is not a consumer.  The complainant had failed to comply with the conditions imposed by Industrial Department Malerkotla to the loan under PMEGP General Programme and as per the project report submitted by the complainant with the District Industrial Department, Malerkotla to disburse the loan in question. The OP averred in the written reply on merits that the complainant wanted the expansion of his business and, thus, applied for a loan of Rs.10 lac to the General Manager Industrial Department Malerkotla and he received a letter from D.C Office Barnala for his interview on 08.12.2010 for this purpose. This fact was admitted by OP that the complainant was called for interview on 29.01.2011 and his name was recommended and sent to OP bank for disbursement of loan after completion of necessary verification and requisite documents, as per norms of the bank. It was further averred that the loan was sanctioned as per the letter No.DIC/MLK/PMEGP/650 dated 20.12.2010, sent by the General Manager District Industrial Centre Barnala at Malerkotla to the OP Bank. However, as per bank norms, CIBIL (Consumer Credit Information Report) of complainant was checked by the OP Bank on 23.03.2011 at 5.45 PM and it was found that complainant had already availed the loan for poultry farm, personal loan and business loan from the other financial institutions. It was averred that temporary shed had already existed on the spot. It was denied by the OP that complainant constructed the shed by spending Rs.80,000/- thereon. It was denied in the written reply that complainant has failed to purchase the insurance policy of Rs.30,000/- by OP. It was further averred that complainant is not interested to start his new business and he disclosed to the OP/Bank that  his only purpose is to receive the subsidy for the loan. It was further averred that OP has no concern with the shed and EDP training, as alleged by the complainant in the complaint. The OP bank advanced the loan in question for the purchase of machinery equipment and working capital only. The complainant failed to complete the formalities, as directed by the government for the loan in question. It was further averred that instead of completing the formalities for the loan, the complainant rather pressurized  the officials of the bank to disburse the loan after ignoring the guidelines and norms of the government or bank. The OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      The complainant tendered in evidence  the affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1, copy of letter addressed to Branch Manager Punjab National Bank Barnala/OP  from the General Manager District Industries Centre Barnala at Malerkotla  Ex.C-2, copy of document regarding sponsoring the case of the complainant Ex.C-3,  copy of receipt no.6718 for payment of Rs.1590/- Ex.C-4,  copy of passbook of complainant Ex.C-5, copy of certificate under PMEGP Scheme Ex.C-6, copy of certificate of OBC Ex.C-7, copy of sale deed Ex.C-8, copy of receipt Ex.C-9, copy of affidavit of Pawan Kumar Ex.C-10 and copy of policy document Ex.C-11. As against it, OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Jaspal Singh Branch Manager, PNB/OP Ex.R-1, copy of document regarding sponsoring the case of the complainant Ex.R-2, copy of document of CIBIL Ex.R-3, copy of document of CIBIL Ex.R-4, copy of statement of account Ex.R-5 and Ex.R-6, copy of statement Ex.R-7, copy of Application Form for Financial Assistance Under Prime Minister's Employment Generation Programme Ex.R-8, copy of letter from The General Manager, District Industries Center, Barnala at Malerkotla to The Branch Manager Punjab National Bank Barnala Ex.R-9, copy of documents of PNB Ex.R-10 and Ex.R-11, copy of Project Profile on Children Garments Ex.R-12, affidavit of Jaspal Singh Branch Manager PNB Ex.R-13. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Barnala partly accepted the complaint of the complainant, directing the OP to pay composite compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant.  Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Barnala dated 07.10.2011, two separate appeals have been preferred against the same, one by complainant, which is First Appeal No.1727 of 2011 and second First Appeal No.1733 of 2011 has been filed by opposite party, the respondent in the appeal.

5.      We have heard Ld.Counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case. We need not to refer to admitted  factual background of the case in this case. There is no dispute between the parties with regard to this fact that complainant appeared for interview on 08.12.2010  in the D.C Office Barnala and application of the complainant was accepted by DC Office  Barnala and his case was duly recommended to OP bank for the disbursement of loan after necessary formalities and verifications. This fact is also undisputed that loan of the complainant was sanctioned, as per letter No.DIC/MLK/PMEGP/650 dated 20.12.2010  sent by the General Manager District Industrial Centre Barnala at Malerkotla to OP Bank. The dispute between the parties pertain to this fact that complainant has not complied with the formalities as required by the bank and the Government for the disbursement of the loan to him. The version of the OP is that the loan is advanced by OP for the purchase of the machinery equipments and working capital to the supplier. We have to confine ourself to this point as to whether the complainant compiled with any formalities required of him by the OP for the disbursement of loan or not.

6.      The affidavit of the complainant Yadwinder Singh is Ex.C-1  on the record. He stated in his affidavit that he was called for interview in DC Office Barnala on 08.12.2010. His case was recommended for disbursement of the loan to OP bank by the concerned authorities. He visited the OP bank for loan of Rs.7 lacs, out of which Rs.5 lac was to be spent for construction purposes and Rs.2 lac for working capital being an OBC candidate with 25% subsidy thereto. He further stated that the OP advised the complainant to construct the shed and take one NRS Electricity Connection and to have EDP training and to have an insurance cover of Rs.30,000/-. He further stated that he spent Rs.80,000/- on the construction of the shed and obtained NRS Electricity Connection on 04.02.2011 by depositing a security of Rs.1590/- , took two week EDP Training and spent Rs.5000/- thereon at Patiala and also obtained insurance cover of Rs.30,000/- by paying premium of Rs.10,000/-. He further stated that OP bank obtained three blank stamped papers of Rs.50/- each bearing Nos.1545 to 1547 dated 2.03.2011. He further stated that he received the order for stitching the uniforms from Pawan Kumar and supply was to be made thereof by 31.03.2011 and he had to incur the loss of Rs.7500/- for not disbursing the loan. He further deposed in affidavit that he incurred the expenses of Rs.96,740/- on fulfilling various type of conditions, as laid down by the OP as referred to above. Ex.C-2 is letter from General Manager District Industries Center Barnala at Malerkotla of OP with regard to consideration of the loan case of the complainant out of it the amount of Rs.5 lac capital expenditure, Rs. 2 lac for working capital, total Rs.7 lac. It is recorded in this letter Ex.C-2 that project may be considered strictly on its merit, if found viable and bankable.  After the project is sanctioned, the beneficiary is to be sent for EDP training at accredited training centre. The margin money claim to the prescribed colour code format alongwith its enclosures may be submitted to the nodal branch of your bank at Punjab National Bank Sector 17 Chandigarh. Ex.C-3 is the sponsoring the case of the complainant, Ex.C-4 is receipt regarding deposit of Rs.1590/- as security for NRS Connection by the complainant, Ex.C-5 is statement of account of the complainant, Ex.C-6 is certificate to the effect that Yadwinder Singh Complainant completed two weeks EDP training in PMEGP conducted at Patiala. Ex.C-7 is certificate of OBC, Ex.C-8 is copy of sale deed proving that Jasbir Kaur w/o Yadwinder Kaur purchased  the property, Ex.C-9 is work order, which was placed for complainant by Pawan Kumar regarding the stitching of the uniforms, Ex.C-10 is affidavit of the above Pawan Kumar, Ex.C-11 is insurance cover taken by the complainant.

7.      The OP relied upon the affidavit of Jaspal Singh, Branch Manager PNB Ex.R-1 on the record. We have carefully examined the affidavit of Jaspal Singh Ex.R-1 on the record. He admitted the factual position in the written reply. The only point of  dispute emerging from his affidavit is that complainant has not complied with the formalities, like verifications etc and complainant was found to have already taken loan from financial institutions like poultry loan, personal loan and on account of non-compliance of the formalities by the complainant the loan was not disbursed to him. Ex.R-2 is the sponsoring case of the complainant, Ex.R-3 is Credit Information Bureau India Limited CIBIL indicating that complainant was sanctioned loan of Rs.50,000/- earlier on 25.11.2010 and Rs.75,000/- on 20.07.2009. Reference may be made to Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-5 on the record in this case. From perusal of Ex.R-6 with regard to the case of the complainant that complainant obtained loan of Rs.68571/-, vide statement dated 28.03.2011, Ex.R-7 further proves that complainant obtained loan, which is due of Rs.45,704/- against him, Ex.R-8 is Application Form for Financial Assistance Under Prime Minister's Employment Generation Programme, Ex.R-9 is letter addressed to Branch Manager PNB Bank from General Manager, District Industries Centre Barnala at Malerkotla, Ex.R-10 to Ex.R-11 letters addressed to the complainant by PNB Bank /OP have been examined by us to the effect that complainant was called upon for completion of the bank formalities, so that loan was disbursed to him. From perusal of letters Ex.R-10 dated 12.11.2011, Ex.R-11 dated 23.11.2011, coupled with the postal receipt Ex.R-12. The OP intimated the complainant to make compliance of the formalities for the disbursement of the loan at the earliest. The Project Profile on Children Garments Ex.R-13 is on the record. The affidavit of Jaspal Singh Branch Manager Ex.R-14 is  the record.

8.      From perusal of above-referred evidence on the record and hearing the respective submissions of counsel for the parties, we find that the complainant's case was sponsored by the District Industries Centre Barnala at Malerkotla for disbursement of the loan under Prime Minister's Scheme. The complainant appeared for interview in the D.C Office Barnala and was duly interviewed therefor. The case of the complainant was sanctioned and he was referred to the OP by the concerned authorities, who were competent to do so in the above scheme launched by the Prime Minister, which was subsidized Scheme. The complainant has sworn affidavit that he constructed the shed and deposited the security for NRS connection and also obtained insurance cover, as per directions of the OP. We find that complainant appeared for interview before D.C Office Barnala and his case was sponsored by General Manger Industries Training Centre Barnala. The complainant deposited the security of Rs.1590/-,vide Ex.C-4 for obtaining NRS Connection. The complainant also received two weeks EDP training under PMEGP, vide Ex.C-6 on the record. The complainant has also sworn his affidavit that he spent money on the construction also. He further stated that he received order from Pawan Kumar for supply of clothes to him and affidavit of Pawan Kumar is Ex.C-10 on the record in this case. The complainant took insurance cover, vide Ex.C-11 on the record. All this steps taken by the complainant to indicate that in his sponsored case, he has made substantial compliance of the formalities and he was selected under this scheme for disbursement of the loan with subsidy and was duly recommended for it by the competent authorities under the above scheme. We find that there was no sufficient reason with the OP to decline the disbursement of the loan to the complainant. The complainant would not have taken so many steps under the scheme, if he was not willing to take the loan thereunder. We find that District Forum has awarded compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant against the OP. The order of the District Forum called for no interference in this appeal in our opinion.

9.      As a result of our above discussion, by upholding the order of the District Forum dated 07.10.2011, we find no merit in the both First Appeal No.1727 of 2011 filed by complainant now appellant and second First Appeal No.1733 of 2011 filed by PNB. Both the above referred appeals are ordered to be dismissed.

10.    In First Appeal No.1733 of 2011, the appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.12,500/- on 1.12.2011 in this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount with interest, if any, accrued thereon, be refunded by the registry to the complainant by way of crossed cheque/demand draft after 45 days from receipt of copy of this order. Remaining amount shall also be paid to complainant by the appellant as per order of the District Forum within 45 days from receipt of the copy of this order.

11.    Arguments in this appeal were heard on 27.04.2011 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.

12.    The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

13.    Copy of this order be placed in FA No.1733 of 2011.

 

                                                                     (J. S. KLAR)

                                                     PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

                                                              (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA)

                                                                         MEMBER

                       

 

                                                           (HARCHARAN SINGH GURAM)                                                                          MEMBER

 

April 30,  2015.                                                           

(ravi)