JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

          The complainant/respondent applied for grant of a loan of Rs. 5 lakhs under a scheme called ‘Kisan Credit Card’, mortgaging his agricultural land with the petitioner Bank.  A loan of Rs. 4 lakhs was sanctioned to him by the petitioner Bank.  However, later the Bank refused to disburse the aforesaid loan.  Being aggrieved from refusal of the Bank to disburse the loan, the petitioner approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, seeking disbursal of the aforesaid loan alongwith cost of damages for harassment amounting to Rs. 20,000/- and cost of litigation amounting to Rs. 11,000/-.

2.      The complaint was resisted by the petitioner Bank primarily on three grounds:-

          (1)     The land of the complainant was situated 32 kms away from the concerned branch and therefore was beyond its territorial jurisdiction.

          (2)     The complainant had made a false declaration that he was in cultivatory profession of the land measuring 41 Kanals and 13 Marlas and

          (3)     The account of the complainant with the other banks was not regular.

3.      The District Forum, vide its order dated 10.09.2013, directed the petitioner Bank to disburse the sanctioned loan and also pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for deficiency in

service besides Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation.  Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum, the petitioner Bank filed an appeal before the State Commission.  The said appeal having been dismissed vide impugned order dated 03.04.2014, the petitioner Bank is before us, by way of this revision petition.

4.      It is not in dispute that the complainant had applied for grant of loan under ‘Kisan Credit Card’ and was seeking loan of Rs. 5 lakhs under the said scheme.  Therefore, the only question which arises for consideration in this revision petition was as to whether the petitioner Bank was justified in not disbursing the aforesaid loan which had been duly sanctioned to the complainant.  As noted earlier, three grounds were given in the reply for not disbursing the loan.  As regards the ground that the account of the complainant with the other bank was not regular, the learned counsel for the petitioner Bank has referred to the statement of account in respect of account no. 81128800026246 of the complainant with Haryana Gramin Bank, Murtzapur.  We find that in the aforesaid account, there was always a credit balance till 14.08.2012.  On the aforesaid date, the balance in the account was Rs. 50/-.  The aforesaid amount of Rs. 50/- was also withdrawn by the complainant on that date, thereby leaving the zero balance in the account.  The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show us how the aforesaid account had become irregular.  This is not the case of the petitioner that some minimum balance was required to be maintained in the aforesaid account.  There is allegation of the complainant having defaulted in payment of some loan.  Ordinarily an account becomes irregular when there is default in timely repayment of the dues.  No such case is made out by the petitioner.  Therefore, we find no merit in the contention that the aforesaid account of the complainant with Haryana Gramin Bank, Murtzapur had become irregular.

5.      The next ground taken by the Bank in its reply was that the complainant had failed to furnish documents showing possession of the land measuring 41 Kanals and 13 Marlas.  However, a perusal of the declaration submitted by the complainant, which is available on page nos. 30 to 33 of the paper book would show that he has submitted the copies of several documents including Jamabandi, Khasra Girdawari, Mutations and Loan Clearance Certificates issued by the Haryana Gramin Bank.  The aforesaid documents have not been placed on record by the petitioner.  Therefore, it cannot be said that the aforesaid documents, referred in the declaration, do not pertain to the land measuring 41 Kanals and 13 Marlas.  We take note of the fact that it was on the basis of the above referred declaration and documents that the Bank sanctioned loan of Rs. 4 lakhs to the complainant.  The petitioner Bank, therefore, was not justified in claiming that the complainant had not submitted documents with respect to possession of land measuring 41 Kanals and 13 Marlas.  This is not the case of the petitioner Bank that it had sanctioned the loan without scrutinising the documents submitted by the complainant alongwith the above referred declaration.  In these circumstances, when the Bank, after scrutiny of the documents submitted by the complainant duly sanctioned the loan and it has failed to show that the said documents did not pertain to land measuring 41 Kanals and 13 Marlas, we find no merit in the plea taken in this regard.  It would also be appropriate to note here that neither the plea of the account with the other bank having become irregular nor the plea of the complainant having not submitted the required documents with respect to the land measuring 41 Kanals and 13 Marlas was agitated either before the District Forum or before the State Commission.  The only plea taken by the Bank before the District Forum and the State Commission was that the land of the complainant was situated about 30 kms from the concerned branch and therefore was beyond the territorial jurisdictional of the branch.

6.      Coming to the issue of the land being situated beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned branch, in our view, the petitioner Bank ought to have gone into this aspect before sanctioning the loan, when the complainant had given all the details of his land alongwith supporting documents, while applying for the loan.  Having sanctioned the loan on the basis of the documents furnished by the complainant, the petitioner Bank was not justified in refusing to disburse the loan, unless the declaration made by the complainant was later found to be false or the documents furnished by him were found to be forged.  This is not the case of the petitioner Bank that the complainant had submitted a false declaration or filed forged documents in support of his claim to be cultivating the land measuring 41 Kanals and 13 Marlas.  The petitioner Bank, having sanctioned the loan, could not have refused to disburse it solely on account of the land in question being situated beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned branch.

7.       For the reasons stated hereinabove, we find no merit in the revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed.