Tripura

StateCommission

A/38/2017

Union Bank Of India - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri. Satyajit Singha - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Prabir Saha, Sri. B. Majumdar, Sri. D. Debnath

08 Dec 2017

ORDER

 

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

Case No.A.38.2017

 

 

1. Union Bank of India,

Represented by its Branch Manager,

Having its office at 4, Hari Ganga Basak Road,

Agartala, P.S. West Agartala,

District - West Tripura.

 

… … … … Appellant/Opposite Party.

 

•  

 

1. Sri Satyajit Singha,

S/o Sri Santosh Lal Singha,

Singh Para, H.G.B. Road,

Agartala, P.S. West Agartala,

District - West Tripura.

… … … … Respondent/Complainant.

 

 

Present

Mr. Justice U.B. Saha,

President,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mrs. Sobhana Datta,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mr. Narayan Sharma,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

 

 

For the Appellant:                               Mr. Prabir Saha, Adv.    

For the Respondent:                            Mr. Bhabani Ranjan Bhattacharjee, Adv.

Date of Hearing & Delivery of Judgment: 08.12.2017.

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

U.B. Saha, J,

The instant appeal is filed by the appellant, Union Bank of India, represented by its Branch Manager, Agartala Branch (hereinafter referred to as opposite party/Bank) against the judgment dated 13.06.2017 passed by the learned District Consumers Disputes Redressal Forum, West Tripura, Agartala (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), in Case No. C.C. 34 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the Ld. District Forum directed the Branch Manager to release the subsequent installment as per terms and conditions to avoid further business loss of the petitioner and that the petitioner is entitled to get compensation amounting to Rs.30,000/- for his business loss and deficiency of service of the O.P. who made inordinate delay in releasing the sanctioned loan. The payment is to be made within one month, failing which it will carry interest @ 9% per annum.

2. Heard Mr. Prabir Saha, Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant-opposite party as well as Mr. Bhabani Ranjan Bhattacharjee, Ld. Advocate appearing for the respondent (hereinafter referred to as complainant).
3. Brief facts needed to be discussed are as follows:-

Complainant, Sri Satyajit Singha, proprietor of M/s Santi Glass House applied for the bank loan under 'Prime Minister Employment Generation Programme' ( PMEGP). The opposite party Bank sanctioned loan under the aforesaid scheme i.e. PMEGP amounting to Rs.5 lacs. The opposite party Bank also released Rs.25,000/- on 31.03.2016. Thereafter, the complainant submitted the second quotation on 29.08.2016 for the subsequent release of installment, but the opposite party Bank did not release the amount and was delaying the process. Bank then asked the complainant to furnish security of Rs.2 lacs for release the subsequent amount. Complainant then brought to the notice of the Branch Manager that for loans below Rs.10 lacs under the aforesaid PMEGP, no security was required. The complainant again approached the Bank Manager on 25.10.2016 and subsequently on 21.02.2017, but the opposite party Bank did not release the amount. As a result he could not run his business. Hence, the complainant filed the complaint petition claiming for compensation on account of deficiency of service by the Bank.

4. The opposite party Branch Manager, Union Bank of India appeared and filed written statement denying the claim of the complainant. In the written statement it is stated that in the month of April, 2016, Assistant Manager of the concerned bank visited the shop premises of the complainant and found that glass item was not purchased as per quotation given by him for release of Rs.25,000/-. Assistant Manager informed the complainant to purchase the stock and submit estimate in the Bank to facilitate further release of the loan. Thereafter, the Manager visited his shop premises. He found that the complainant did not keep sufficient stock. Stock statement was not submitted. Bank Manager never told to furnish security for Rs.2 lacs. The subsequent installment was not released because the petitioner did not act as per the Bank’s terms and conditions. So, there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party-Bank.
5. On the basis of the contention raised by the parties in their pleadings, the learned District Forum has taken the following points for deciding the case:-

1. Whether the petitioner violated the terms and condition of the bank loan agreement by not supplying the stock register or payment receipt by the item purchased as per quotation?
2. Whether there was deficiency of service by the O.P. and petitioner is entitled to get loan sanctioned money and compensation?

6. Complainant produced the loan sanctioned letter, retail invoice dated 29.08.2016. Complainant also produced the statement on affidavit of himself.
7. The opposite party Bank on the other hand produced the photocopy of delivery of goods letter, loan application, post disbursement inspection report dated 30.04.2016, notice to the complainant. Post disbursement inspection series. The opposite party also produced statement on affidavit of one Animesh Ranjan Das, Assistant Manager.
8. Both the parties adduced their evidence.
9. The learned District Forum after considering the evidence on record and the documents as produced by the parties passed the impugned judgment.
10. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned District Forum, the appellant-Bank has preferred the instant appeal.
11. Mr. Saha, Ld. Advocate submits that though the complainant submitted the invoice of M/s Chittaranjan Pictures for an amount of Rs.27,452/-, but did not submit any money receipt/cash memo, but then also, the opposite party Bank issued a draft in favour of the complainant for an amount of Rs.27,280/-. He further submits that the opposite party Bank has also sanctioned an amount of Rs.4,75,000/- though the margin money was Rs.5 lacs. He has again contended that though the complainant submitted his quotation for an amount of Rs.1,64,320/- before the opposite party Bank on 04.04.2016, but on inspection by the Bank Authority it was found that the shop wherein the complainant was supposed to continue his business was closed. Hence, the opposite party Bank did not release the amount of Rs.1,64,320/- as asked for. Thus there was no deficiency of service. He finally submits that when there was no deficiency of service, paying compensation for an amount of Rs.30,000/- as directed by the learned District Forum is uncalled for.
12. Mr. Bhattacharjee, Ld. Advocate submits that the shop in which the complainant started his business was admittedly closed before submitting the quotation for Rs.1,64,320/- as the shop belongs to the father of the complainant. He also submits that the complainant could not produce the money receipt/cash memo to the Bank Authority for the money released in favour of him amounting to Rs.27,280/- as first installment. He has finally contended that the complainant is ready to continue his business in another shop, therefore, the Bank Authority may be directed to release the rest amount in favour of the complainant subject to the production of money receipt and alternative place of business.
13. We have gone through the impugned judgment as well as the evidence. From the evidence it appears that the complainant failed to produce any money receipt as required by the opposite party Bank for releasing the second installment. More so, after filing of the second quotation by the complainant when the Bank Authority went for inspection of the shop of the complainant found that the complainant did not have sufficient stock in his shop. Thereafter also, the Bank Authority visited the shop premises of the complainant on 19.09.2016 and found that the said shop of the complainant was closed, for which the Bank official was not in a position to verify the stocks of the complainant in his shop.
14. In view of the above, we are of the view that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party-Bank. At this stage, Mr. Bhattacharjee, Ld. Advocate submits that the complainant will start his business in a different shop and the relevant papers will be submitted before the Bank so that the opposite party-Bank can release the sanctioned amount in favour of the complainant.
15. It appears from the record of the District Forum that a retail Invoice No.2314 dated 29.08.2016 of Rs.27,452/- of M/s Chittaranjan Picture, Agartala towards purchase of glass item has been produced and a letter of Asstt. Manager, Union Bank of India, (Annexure-D1 to the written objection filed on behalf of the O.P Bank) has also been submitted which speaks that opposite parties-Bank has released an amount of Rs.27,280/- by issuance a draft bearing No.20238691 Dated 31.3.2016 in favour of M/s Chittaranjan Picture with request to furnish the original money receipt and other papers to the opposite parties-Bank.
16. It is averred by the complainant-petitioner that opposite parties-Bank has released Rs.25,000/-, that also by draft, as first installment against loan sanctioned to him from the said Bank under PMEGP scheme. This submission of the complainant-petitioner is denied in the written statement filed for and on behalf of the opposite parties-Bank. It is curious enough that both the complainant-petitioner and the opposite parties-Bank has mentioned that the first installment was released by bank draft and the number of the draft referred to is also the same, but the amount is mentioned different as stated above. We do not understand how a single draft can be taken for two unlike amount. Under these circumstances, we can easily and safely presume that the letter dated 02.04.2016 of the Asstt. Manager of the Union Bank should be relied upon. So an amount of Rs.27,280/- can be accepted released as first installment in the form of a draft in the name of M/s Chittaranjan Picture.
17. The complainant-petitioner claims for release of the 2^nd installment. He also likes to have his business in another place as he left his earlier business premises. The opposite parties-Bank insists on procurement of the receipt towards utilization of the money released as first installment. At this stage, the Chief Manager of the opposite party-Bank appearing with the Ld. Advocate for the Bank-appellant has assured this Commission that if the complainant submits proper documents relating to new business premises (shop) in the same locality and also produces the cash memo regarding the purchase of goods so far the release of an amount of Rs.27,280/- is concerned, then the Bank will sanction and release the subsequent installments of loan.
18. Keeping in view the above, the complainant is directed to produce the necessary documents regarding the new place of business premises and also money receipt/cash memo of the goods purchased by him earlier after taking the first installment of loan amounting to Rs.27,280/- within a period of one month and he shall also submit an affidavit that he will continue the business after receipt of the second installment. Opposite party Bank Authority is directed to release the sanctioned loan amount in installments phase to phase subject to the complainant produces the documents regarding new place of business premises and money receipt regarding purchase of goods after obtaining first installment.

As we already held that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party Bank, therefore, the opposite party Bank is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant as awarded by the learned District Forum. The impugned judgment passed by the learned District Forum is modified to the extent as indicated above.

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed as agreed to by the parties.

Send down the records to the Ld. District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala.

 

 

MEMBER State Commission Tripura MEMBER State Commission Tripura PRESIDENT State Commission Tripura