KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.138/03 JUDGMENT DATED:20/8/08 PRESENT:- JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER 1. The Managing Director, SBT, Head Office, Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. The Deputy Manager (Credit) Director, SBT, Head Office, Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram. : APPELLANTS 3. The Chief General Manager, SBT, Head Office, Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram. 4. The Chief Manager, SBT, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram (By Adv.S.S.Kalkura) Vs 1. Speciality Hospital Group (P) Ltd., Nedumangadu. 2. Dr.T.V.Gopalakrishnan Nair, : RESPONDENTS Managing Director, Specialty Hospital Group (P) Ltd., Registered office at College Road, Nedumangadu (By Adv.Manacaud K.Radhakrishnan Nair) JUDGMENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/State Bank of Travancore authorities who has sought for setting aside the order of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in OP 521/00 directing them to refund of Rs.1,33,000/- with future interest at 14.5% and also to pay Rs.1,500/- towards costs. 2. It is the case of the complainants representing M/s Specialty Hospital Group Pvt. Ltd., that the company which promoted a hospital had discussions with the appellants and had agreed to sanction the loan required and were asked to deposit Rs. 1.48 lakhs for the specialized study of the project. After 6 months the complainant was intimated that the project is not economically viable and declined the application for loan. When the amount deposited was sought to be refunded the request was rejected. Hence the complainant. 3. On the other hand, the appellants had pointed out that the complainants approached the opposite parties/appellants for a loan of Rs.4.48 crores. Subsequently it was reduced to Rs.3 crores. The technical committee of the bank has been constituted to enquire into viability of the project and conducted a detailed study and concluded that it is not viable. R.1.48 lakhs was asked to be deposited only as cost of study and the complainants were informed that the amount will not be refunded. Hence the amount cannot be refunded. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, DW1 Exts.P1 to P7, D1 to D5. 5. The Forum found that the amount deposited and declined to be refunded ie, Rs.1.48 lakhs as quite exorbitant for the investigation expenses and held that a sum of Rs.15,000/- would be sufficient and ordered the balance of Rs.1,33,000/- to be returned. 6. It is pointed out by the counsel for the appellant that the Forum has not at all considered the case of the appellant and the documents produced that would clearly show that the complainants were informed before the deposit of the amount itself that the amount would not be refunded at any circumstances and that it was fully knowing that the amount is not liable to be refunded that the complainants have remitted the amount. It is further stressed that the expert study conducted by the Technical Consultancy Cell (TCC) concluded that the project is not at all feasible and hence the loan application was rejected. The amount collected was for bearing expenses of availing services of experts in the respective fields. Hence the same cannot be refunded. 7. On a consideration of the evidence adduced we find that it is evident from Exts.D1 and D2 documents ie, the letters addressed to the complainants that the amount to be deposited is at the rate of Rs.250/- per lakh + a flat charge of Rs.10,000/- which in the case of the complainants/applicants would workout to Rs.1,48,000/-. It is also mentioned in Ext.D1 that agreeing to undertake a feasibility study would not in any away mean that the appellants have in principle agreed to sanction any credit. Ext.D2 is the letter from the complainants to the opposite parties/appellants mentioning that in case the project is found not feasible by TCC on appraisal the scrutiny fee remitted may kindly be refunded and that the company is its inception stage facing financial crunch. The above letter is dated 1/12/97 and Ext.D3 is the reply to Ext.D2. It is mentioned that in case the project is found not viable it has been informed by the Head Office that fee will not be refunded under any circumstances. It is thereafter that the amount has been deposited. Ext.D4 is the study report by the TCC containing 38 pages, including the facing sheet and list of annexures. No particulars as to the expenses incurred for the study has been furnished by the appellants. The study report is dated 16/2/98. The complainant that the amount has been remitted on 29/12/97 has not been disputed. Evidently it is thereafter that the matter has been reported to the Head Office by the appellants and the technical study has been conducted. As evident from the date of Ext.D4 study report ie, 16/2/98 the period taken for the study is about one month. In the circumstances it appears that despite prior intimation that the amount would not be refunded appropriating the entire sum appears somewhat unreasonable. Of course, the Forum has granted only a sum of Rs.15,000/- for the study which appears to be rather inadequate. In the circumstances we are inclined to modify the order of the Forum. It has to be noted that the applicants for loan has no other option but to submit to the conditions imposed prior to the sanctioning of the loan. In the circumstances we find that a sum of Rs.50,000/- would be quite sufficient for the study conducted within probably one month. Hence the order of the Forum is modified to the effect that the appellants would refund the amount of Rs.98,000/- ie, Rs.1.48 lakhs -- Rs.50,000/- to the complainants with interest at 7,5% from the date of the complaint. The rate of interest ordered by the Forum appears excessive. The order to pay cost of Rs.1,500/- is upheld. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER PK.
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU | | 
