S .S Ali, Member

Case of the complainant, in short, is that he applied before the OP bank for rendering financial assistance under the‘MPEDA Ornamental Fish Assistance Scheme’.  It is stated by the complainant that as per the said scheme, out of the total project cost of Rs. 15 lakhs, Rs. 7.5 lakhs is bank loan and rest is subsidy to be sponsored by MPEDA.  It is further stated by the complainant that pursuant to his application, the OP bank authority, after conducting due diligence, issued loan sanctionsadvice in his favour on 28.05.2011.  However, for some obscure reasons, the OP bank subsequently developed cold feet and avoided disbursing the loan amount in his favour on some pretext or the other causing unnecessary harassment, mental stress and agony to the complainant.  Hence, the instant case seeking for relief as per prayer of the complaint.

In support of his case, the complainant filed photocopies of Project Report, Loan Sanction Advice issued by the OP bank, Loan application form, Deed of Conveyance, parcha, Water analysis Report, letter of MPED Authority dt. 21-11-2011, his correspondences with different authorities, Certificate issued by the Directorate of Fisheries etc.

The opposite parties contested the case by entering appearance and by filing written version as well as WNA and took a positive part in the entire proceeding.The OPs state that the complainant was not given any sanction letter rather he prayed for issuing a sanction advice  in his favour with the contention that unless such an advice is issued in his favour, the MPED Authority would not sanction the project and accordingly, as per his request, the bank authority issued the said sanction advice dated 28-5-2011 in favour of the complainant. The OPs further state that in order to process his application, the OPs advised the complainant to furnish requisite papers vizplan, estimate for material cost for construction of cemented water tank, glass tank, aquarium, quotation for purchase of plastic pipes, source of water supply, electric accessories like motor pump, generator, inverter, electric heater, fan etc, and the said sanction advice was valid for only three month.  However, the complainant did not comply with their direction and neglected to file requisite documents within the stipulated time hence they could not process his loan application.  Accordingly, they prayed for dismissal of the instant case.

Points for determination

1. Whether the instant case is maintainable?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of OPs as alleged?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief and/or reliefs as prayed for?

Decision with reasons

Aforesaid points are taken up collectively for the sake of convenience of discussion.

We have carefully gone through the entire materials on record submitted by the parties including the WNA on record, considered the submission of ld. Advocates appeared on behalf of both sides.

The complainant filed a letter dated 21-11-11 issued by MPEDA as advance approval for the construction of ornamental fish breeding unit Gr-III, i.e after 6 months of receiving of the sanction advice from the bank whereas, it appears from the Instruction Circular No. 9255 dt. 26.04.2012 all sanctions of fresh proposals for Fund based and Non Fund based working capital facilities would have a validity period of 3 months.  It clearly goes to show that the complainant submitted the said approval after the expiry of the validity period of loan sanction.

On going through the record it is found that the complainant has not submitted any document before the OPs, but the same were submitted with the MPED Authority.  There is nothing on record to show that the complainant paid any service charge to the OP bank.  From the materials on record, we thus, do not find any substance whereby the complainant would qualify as a consumer under the OPs.Accordingly, while the status of the complainant being the consumer under the OPs is not established, question of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs do not and cannot arise, as alleged by the complainant and therefore, the instant case being not maintainable, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

that the instant CC case no. 20/2012 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OPs.  Parties do bear their respective cost.

                                                S.S. Ali                                                A.K. Bhattacharyya

                                                Member                                               President