1.  Delay of 4 days is condoned.

2.  Appellant/Complainant has filed this First Appeal under Section 15 and 21 of  Consumer  Protection Act, 1986(for short, Act’) challenging order dated 20.3.2014, passed by Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai, Circuit Bench Aurangabad (for short, ‘State Commission’) vide which his complaint was partly allowed.

3.  Brief facts are that, appellant and his co-promoter Mrs. Seema Suhas Khedkar are having agricultural land in the village Shirpur Tq. Pathardi Dist.Ahmednagar. With the intention  to  take up “Hi-tech Horticultural Project”

as  launched by Maharashtra State Government whereby 20% subsidy was available, appellant prepared a plan “TECHNO-ECONOMIC FEASABILITY on PLANTATION OF ORANGE” and also prepared a report on such plantation of orange wherein all  the details of the project including cost of the project was shown as Rs.12,41,710/-. The promoters had to contribute 25% and the bank loan was to be 75% and the same was to be repaid within 7 years.

4. Thus, appellant approached the Respondent Bank for availing loan for the said project. Respondent showed its willingness to sanction the loan. Accordingly, appellant submitted the loan proposal to the respondent in the month of Dec. 2010. He also submitted the necessary  documents  in the month of Jan. 2011. The respondent sanctioned the loan of Rs.9,00,000/- and  issued  sanctioned  letter,  dated 17/02/2011 asking the appellant to submit the mortgage deed of the said agricultural land for disbursement of the same. The appellant, immediately on 18/02/2011 got the mortgaged deed in favour of the respondent and submitted the same to it. Thereafter, inspite of continuous follow up for disbursement of the loan amount from April to June 2011, there was no positive response from the respondent. Hence, on 08/08/2011 appellant made complaint to the Regional Office and Head Office of the respondent bank, regarding non-disbursement of the sanctioned loan by its Karanji branch. In response thereto, the Senior Manager from Regional Office visited the site and verified all documents and said that there was no issue to disburse the loan amount. Thereafter, respondent vide its letter dated 18/08/2011, asked the appellant to regularize the direct liability. Accordingly, appellant from Sept. 2011 repeatedly requested the respondent to allow him to change the guarantor or to provide the information for the process of cancellation of mortgage. However, no action was taken by the respondent. Then appellant lodged online complaint to the Banking Ombudsmen.  On 02/03/2012, the Bank Ombudsmen intimated the appellant of his rejection of the complaint.

5. Thereafter, the  appellant  on  10/05/2012 sent on-line complaint to the Help desk of Reserve Bank of India against the decision of Banking Ombudsmen but there was no response. Suddenly, on 01/06/2012 appellant received official written communication from the respondent regarding reasons of rejection of the loan proposal. Thus, it is alleged by the appellant that respondent had not adopted fair  practice, while rejecting the loan proposal. The appellant has suffered huge loss amounting to  Rs.20,20,156/-  on account of  Project report, Search report, Mortgage deed, Land development, Loss of orange production  due to delay for the first year (as per project report), Loss of arrange production due to delay for second year (as per project report) and Compensation towards mental harassment and Loss due to increasing interest rate.

6.  In its written statement, respondents took the plea that  it is their discretion to grant loan to the proper person. It is submitted that in the present case, on confidential enquiry it was revealed that the guarantor of the appellant, namely Shri Haribhushan Palave is a willful defaulter of loan with other banks. Therefore, appellant was requested  to bring other guarantor and replace the guarantor to the mortgage, but appellant failed to do so.  Further, vide letter dated 23/01/2012 the appellant was asked to submit the fresh loan proposal. However, appellant failed to submit the same. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent.

7.  The State Commission, vide impugned order partly allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to pay to the complainant, a compensation of Rs.23,000/- (Rs. Twenty three thousand only) towards the expenditure incurred by him for submitting the loan proposal with required documents along with interest @ 6% p.a. from 18/02/2011 (date of  registration of mortgage deed) within a period of 30 days, failing which the opponent bank shall pay additional interest at 1% till the entire amount is paid.

8.  Appellant not satisfied with the order of the State Commission, has filed the present appeal for enhancement.

9.  It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that State Commission erred in failing to appreciate that the Techno-Economic Feasibility report of the project submitted to the respondent specifically shows, that the appellant would have earned some profit over the years from the plantation of the oranges on its land.

10. It is further submitted by the learned counsel  that the projected balance sheets for the 3^rd and 4^th year specifically shows that appellant would have earned an amount of Rs.4,84,000/- and Rs.8,13,120/- through timely implementation of the project. However, the same could not be implemented on account of the acts and conduct of the respondent and it amounts to deficiency in service. Therefore, the  appellant ought to have been compensated with the aforementioned loss of profit suffered by him due to non implementation.

11. The State Commission in its impugned order observed;

“The complainant by way of his complaint has claimed total compensation of Rs.20,20,156/-, the breakup of  which is already given in para No. 2 above. The  Complainant’s claim for the compensation towards land development, loss of orange produce for two years is not justified. There is not any documentary evidence to show that the complainant has made certain expenditure on the land development and also he had planted the orange trees etc. The execution of the said project as it appears to be from the available record was not at all commenced and hence, his claim of compensation on these items can not be accepted. Further, further the amount of compensation towards mental harassment which is claimed by complainant at Rs 5,00,000/- is highly excessive and unreasonable and hence the same can not also be accepted. Further the compensation of Rs 36,000/- towards loss due to increasing interest rate can not also be sustained without any supporting documentary evidence to that effect.

    In fact the actual loss of the complainant is only the amount of expenditure which he had to incur on preparing the project report, search report and the registration of mortgage deed. The total expenditure said to have been made by the complainant on these three items works out to Rs 23,000/- therefore we are of the view that the complainant is entitled for this amount of Rs 23,000/-  with reasonable amount of interest and also compensation  towards mental harassment and cost for the filing of the present complaint.”

12. Appellant has made following claims in para no.21 of its complaint;

13. The projected profitability statement filed by the appellant (page 51 of the paper book) itself shows that there would be a net loss of Rs.3,13,264/- during the 1^st year and for the second year the net loss would be Rs.1,33,754/-. However, as per appellant’s claim made in the complaint he is claiming sum of Rs.4,84,000/- being the loss of orange production due to delay for 1^st year and sum of Rs.8,13,120/- being the loss of orange production due to delay for 2^nd year. Thus, the claim made by the appellant in the complaint and projected profitability statement filed by him contradict each other.

14.   The entire case of appellant is based upon uncertainties, conjuncture and surmises. The project profitability statement as relied by the appellant, is of no help to him, since it pertains to 3^rd and 4^th year, respectively.

15. The State Commission had rightly observed, that the actual loss suffered by the appellant is only the amount of expenditure which it had incurred for the purpose of preparation of the project report, search report and registration of mortgage deed, which comes to Rs.23,000/-.

16. It is well settled, that purpose of the Act is not to enrich the consumers. In the present case, the actual loss as suffered by the appellant, has only to be reimbursed. In addition, reasonable amount of compensation can be awarded.

17.  The impugned order of the State Commission is well reasoned one. There is no infirmity or illegality in it.  Accordingly, there is no merit in this appeal and same is hereby dismissed in limini.

……………………………………...

     (V.B. GUPTA, J)

      PRESIDING MEMBER                                                                

Sg.