Tripura

StateCommission

A/33/2016

The Branch Manager, SBI - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri. Mithan Deb - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Amrit Lal Saha, Mr. Kajal Nandi, Mr. Abheek Saha Miss. Sumi Datta.Miss. Madhumita Bhattacharjee

19 Apr 2017

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

 

Case No.A.33.2016

 

1. The Branch Manager,

State Bank of India,

Manik Bhandar Branch,

P.O. Manik Bhandar - 799287,

Kamalpur, District - Dhalai, Tripura.

 

… … … … Appellant/Opposite Party No.1.

 

•  

 

1. Sri Mithan Deb,

S/o Sri Pranab Deb,

Resident of Vill- Lambucherra,

P.O. Manik Bhandar, P.S. Kamalpur,

District - Dhalai, Tripura, Pin: 799287.

… … … … … … Respondent/Complainant.

2. The General Manager,

District Industry Centre (DIC),

Jawaharnagar, P.O. Ambassa,

District - Dhalai, Tripura, Pin: 799289.

 … … …  Proforma Respondent/Opposite Party No.2

 

Present

Mr. Justice U.B. Saha,

President,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mrs. Sobhana Datta,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mr. Narayan Ch. Sharma,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

 

 

For the Appellant:                                           Mr. Kajal Nandi, Adv.

For the Respondents:                                Absent        

Date of Hearing & Delivery of Judgment:   19.04.2017.

 

 

 

 

J U D G M E N T [O R A L]

 

U.B. Saha,J,

The instant appeal is filed by the appellant Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Manik Bhandar Branch under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the judgment dated 14.06.2016 passed by the Ld. District Consumers Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), Dhalai, Kamalpur  in Case No. 2/CC/KMP of 2016 whereby and whereunder the Ld. District Forum allowed compensation for deficiency of service amounting to Rs.10,000/- being 4% of the sanctioned loan amount which normally may be the processing charge of a loan application for a normal customer.

2.       Heard Mr. Kajal Nandi, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Branch Manager, State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as opposite party no.1/SBI/Bank). None appears for the respondents.

3. The respondent no.1-complainant did not appear even after receipt of the notice. Therefore, there is no alternative before us except to decide the matter in absence of the complainant.  
4. Brief facts needed to be discussed are as follows:-

The respondent no.1 Mithan Deb (hereinafter referred to as complainant) was selected by the District Level Task Force Committee and the respondent no.2 General Manager, DIC, Dhalai who was the opposite party no.2 in the complaint case had sponsored the loan proposal of the complainant under PMEGP Scheme to SBI, Manik Bhandar Branch for sanctioning a loan of Rs.5,00,000/-. Accordingly, the complainant also underwent entrepreneurship training. According to the complainant, the opposite party no.1 Bank sanctioned him a loan of Rs.4,00,000-, but ultimately disbursed only Rs.2.37 lakhs to him. As a result, his business suffered and became nonviable. He also suffered loss in terms of the subsidy that would have been granted to him by the State.

• Both the opposite parties, Bank and the General Manager DIC, Dhalai entered their appearance and filed their respective written statements. The General Manager, DIC in his written statement has contended that they have no locus standi as regards to the decisions of loan being sanctioned by the Bank and their responsibility ends with sponsoring of the loan proposal.

On the other hand, SBI, Manik Bhandar Branch in its written statement contended that the Branch had issued provisional sanction of Rs.4,00,000/-, but the said proposal was not agreed upon by the SBI, Regional Business Office (RBO) and they reduced the loan to Rs.2,37,000/- which has been duly disbursed to the complainant on the basis of the agreement signed by the complainant.

5. The Ld. District Forum after hearing the parties and considering the evidence on record framed the following issues for disposal of the complaint petition.

1. Whether the petitioner is a consumer.
2. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of the respondents i.e. Branch Manager, SBI, Manik Bhandar and/or General Manager, District Industry Centre, Dhalai.
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation due to deficiency of service, if so, what shall be the quantum and who shall be liable to pay the same.

During the course of hearing, the complainant examined himself and submitted some documents i.e.

1. Prior notice before filing suit issued by the Branch Manager, SBI, Manikbhandar Branch against the complainant Sri Mithan Deb on 05.02.2016 (Exhibit.1).
2. Sanction letter of PMEGP (subsidized scheme) loan for the financial year 2014-2015 vide No.BM/35 dated 12.01.2015 for Rs.4,00,000/- (Exhibit.2).
3. Letter regarding sponsoring the beneficiary for EDP training against total project cost of Rs.4,00,000/- (Exhibit.3).
4. Statement of loan account issued by SBI, Manik Bhandar Branch (Exhibit.4).
5. Sample of Format for provisional Sanction Letter issued by the SBI for provisional sanction (Exhibit.5).

6. The opposite party no.1 examined its Branch Manager, SBI, Manik Bhandar Branch as O.P.W.1 and relied upon the following documents:-

1. Letter of Manager, (LPC), SBI, Regional Business Office, Agartala addressed to the Chief Manager, SBI, Manik Bhandar Branch dated 23.03.2015 by which they sanctioned Rs.2.37 lakhs to the complainant which is marked as Exhibit.B.
2. Agreement of loan between opposite party Bank and the complainant, which is marked as Exhibit.C.
3. Letter of arrangement duly signed by the complainant, SBI, Manik Bhandar Branch is marked as Exhibit.D. 

7. The Ld. District Forum took up all the issues together for its decision. In its findings, the District Forum answered the issue no.1 in affirmative holding that the complainant is a consumer. It is also noted that “It is no longer res integra that it is the exclusive discretion of the bank regarding sanctioning of loan which depends upon the viability of the project, credit worthiness of the borrower his sense of honesty in repaying the loan and it is not opened to the Consumer Forum to substitute its judgment for the decision of the bank. Thus, there is no presumption that if the loan would have been sanctioned, the complainant would have made profits or that he had to suffer, as his loan was not sanctioned” and ultimately relying upon the judgment in the case of The Regional Manager, State Bank of India & Anr. Vs. A. Periasamy-1992(2) CPR 395 (SCRDC - Mad) held that the Forum cannot direct the bank authorities to sanction the loan desired by the complainant.  It is also noted that the opposite party no.1 SBI, Manik Bhandar Branch had issued a sanction letter dated 12.01.2015 bearing No.BM/35 by which it has been categorically stated that Rs.4,00,000/- was sanctioned and there was no mention of the word ‘Provisional’ and ultimately disposed of the complaint case assessing the compensation for deficiency in service as stated (supra). The Ld. District Forum though has held that the complainant is a defaulter, the compensation is not to be paid to the complainant directly and it is to be adjusted against repayment of his loan amount and also made it clear that the impugned judgment will not come in the way of the bank taking any legal recourse for recovery of the loan.
8. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the District Forum, the opposite party no.1 Bank has preferred the instant appeal.
9. Mr. Nandi, Ld. Counsel while urging for setting aside the judgment of the Ld. District Forum would contend that the Ld. District Forum failed to consider the evidence on record particularly, the agreement signed by the parties i.e. Exhibit.C from which, it would be evident that though initially the appellant Bank sanctioned Rs.4,00,000/- against the loan application of the complainant, but as the Regional Business Office of the Bank sanctioned Rs.2.37 lakhs, the appellant Branch could not disburse Rs.4,00,000/- and the said fact was known to the complainant before entering into the agreement. In the agreement dated 28.03.2015, it is specifically mentioned that aggregate limit sanctioned is Rs.2,37,000/- and the complainant was also agreed to repay the loan amount by 84 monthly instalments of Rs.4,577/- each with the first instalment commencing on 30.06.2015 and the last instalment falling due on 28.03.2022. He further submits that the complainant was happy with the disbursed amount of Rs.2,37,000/- in favour of the complainant by 4 (four) instalments starting from 29.03.2015 and last instalment disbursed on 29.06.2015. He finally contended that the complainant became a defaulter borrower. The opposite party no.1 Bank served several notices upon him for liquidating the loan amount, ultimately the Bank has declared his loan account as NPA/irregular and only after the Bank initiated recovery proceeding against the complainant, he filed the complaint case.
10. We have gone through the impugned judgment as well as the exhibited documents. From the agreement signed by the parties, it appears that aggregate limit of sanctioned loan amount was Rs.2,37,000/- not Rs.4,00,000/- though initially the aforesaid amount was sanctioned. Parties are bound by the contract between them through agreement. It was within the knowledge of the complainant that the sanctioned amount of loan was Rs.2.37 lakhs and not Rs.4/- lakhs as desired by him and sanctioned by the Branch Manager, SBI, Manik Bhandar Branch. Therefore, according to us, there was no deficiency of service on the part of the appellant-Bank.

In view of the above, we are unable to accept the findings of the District Forum regarding deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party no.1-Bank. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is set aside. In the result, the appeal is allowed.        

Send down the records to the Ld. District Forum, Dhalai, Kamalpur.