BEFORE THE PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM
GOMATI DISTRICT ::: UDAIPUR
CASE NO. C.C. 18 OF 2013
Petition filed U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Smti. Rinku Baidya(Nandi) - Complainant
Versus
The Branch Manager,
United Bank of India,
Udaipur Branch. - Opposite Party
PRESENT
Shri Asish Pal,
PRESIDENT
Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum,
Gomati District, Udaipur
And
Shri Haridas Roy Barman
&
Smti. Runu Das (Roy Choudhuri)
MEMBERS
COUNSEL
For the Complainant - Mr. Jhunan Ch. Das,
Learned Advocate.
For the Opposite Party - Mr. Saktipada Chakraborty,
Learned Advocate.
Date of Delivery of Judgment - 05.03.2015
J U D G M E N T
This case arises on the petition under Section 12 of the Consumers Protection Act, alleging about the deficiency of service by The Branch Manager, UBI, Udaipur Branch.
2. The case of the petitioner, in short, is that she applied for unemployment lone and financial assistance of Rs. 5 lack under the PMEGP Scheme to run cyber café business. Rs. 4, 50,000/- was sanctioned by the bank authority. Rs. 2, 55,000/- was term loan and Rs.1, 95,000/- was working capital. Direction given to deposit 5% as margin money to be kept under fixed deposit scheme. The O.P. firstly paid Rs. 1 lac, secondly Rs.10, 000/-, thirdly Rs. 10,000/-, fourthly Rs. 50,000/- fifthly Rs. 60,000/-. Total Rs. 2, 30,000/- was deposited in the account of the complainant. The complainant petitioner paid the loan amount in installment, total Rs. 82,591/-, on different dates and requested the O.P. to pay the outstanding loan amount of Rs. 2.20, 000/- that was sanctioned. On different dates she approached the bank authority but the outstanding loan amount Rs. 2, 20,000/- was not disbursed. As it was not disbursed so, she could not run the business. As per terms and conditions of the agreement, 25% subsidy money Rs. 1,12,500/- is to be deposited in the name of the petitioner and that money after three years is to be adjusted with loan amount but it was also not done. The petitioner, therefore, prays for giving direction to the O.P. to disburse the loan amount of Rs. 2,20,000/- and to pay the interest of the marginal money and deposit subsidy money Rs. 1,12,500/- for adjustment in recovery of loan.
3. Respondent Bank Manager appeared and filed written statement denying the claim. It is stated that loan money Rs. 2, 25,000/- was deposited in the loan account of petitioner and it is the contribution to the borrower as per terms and conditions of PMEGP so, interest of the margin money does not arise as it is already deposited in the loan account. Total disbursement of loan the petitioner never approached the bank authority for third phase of the loan for claiming subsidy. Subsidy amount is deposited with total interest which was kept in the fixed deposit. Total deposit in the loan amount is Rs. 2, 57,919/-. By filing additional written statement it is stated that out of sanction Rs. 4, 50,000/- the O.P. paid Rs. 2,10,000/- in the loan account to the complainant on different dates. Remaining portion of the loan amount is to be given on the quotation from the supplies of the goods. The O.P. is to issue cheque in favour of the supplier but the complainant failed to do so. The O.P. deposited loan amount of Rs. 1,29,529/- in place of Rs. 1, 12.500/- as fixed deposit foe adjustment in course of realization.
4. On the basis of the contention raised by the parties I shall now determine the following points:
- Whether the sanctioned loan amount was not disbursed.
- Whether there was deficiency of service by the bank authority.
5. The petitioner side produced original counter part of the receipt, application of the complainant for financial assistance, original sanction agreement, copy of sanction letter, letter of the O.P., certificate of National Nodal Agency, statement of loan account. Claimant side also examined one witness i.e. the claimant of the case. On the other hand, O.P. also produced the bank loan statement and examined one witness namely, Sri Raghunath Bharracharjee, representative of the bank.
FINDINGS & DECISIONS AND REASONS FOR DECISION ON
POINT NOS. 1 & 2
6. On the evidence on record, I shall now determine the above points.
It is admitted and established fact that Rs. 4,50,000/- loan amount was sanctioned. This amount divided into three parts. One is term loan Rs. 2,55,000/-, another is working capital Rs. 1,95,000/-. Out of this, term loan amount was disbursed after deduction of margin money. Dispute is over the working capital Rs. 1,95,000/-. That amount was not disbursed. The contention of the bank authority is that they are ready to issued cheque against the raw materials, stock of finished goods purchased by the petitioner and the cheque will be issued only infavour of the supplier not to the petitioner.
I have gone through the terms and conditions of the loan as enshrined in the loan agreement. It is written in Clause 6 of the agreement that hypothecation of the goods consisting stock of raw materials, stock in process, finished goods and stocks in trade is necessary for working capital. Petitioner did not purchase the finished goods and raw materials and vouchers not produced so, this is fault of the complainant petitioner for want of which the working capital Rs. 1.95,000/- would not be disbursed. The bank authority admitted that amount of Rs. 1,12,000/- was deposited in the account of the petitioner under fixed deposit scheme as per terms and conditions. So, the maturity value definitely will be adjusted with the loan amount by the bank authority during realization. The petitioner denied about signing in the agreement paper but her signature is found. Without signing in the agreement paper loan would not be sanctioned. From scrutinizing the evidence on record, it is found that Rs. 2,30,000/- was disbursed, Rs. 22,500/- margin money was deposited in the bank account. Video cassette machine etc. all are to be purchased and the cheque will be issued by the bank authority to the extent of Rs. 1,95,00/- directly to the supplier as per terms and conditions. Therefore, deficiency of the service by the bank authority in disbursement of loan amount not found. 25% subsidy amount Rs.1,12,500/- is deposited in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner will get interest accrued thereon for adjustment of the loan amount. This direction is given to the bank authority through it is admittedly done by the bank. The bank authority is directed to pay the working capital Rs. 1,95,000/- to the supplier on purchase of articles after hypothecation as per agreement. Bank authority is already directed to pay Rs. 22,500/- margin money from 22.4.2010 to 6.1.2011 as claimed. The claim of compensation of Rs. 5 lac for deficiency of service is not supported by cogent evidence. No deficiency of service of the bank authority is detected, therefore, nothing given for deficiency of service. Thus, both the points are decided accordingly.
7. In view of my above findings over the two points, the O.P. bank authority is directed to follow the above direction and pay the rest amount to the petitioner.
8. The case stands disposed of.
9. Supply copy of this judgment to the parties at free of cost.
A N N O U N C E D
(Haridas Roy Barman) (Smti. Runu Das (Roy Choudhuri) (Asish Pal)
Member Member President
Consumer Dispute Redressal Consumer Dispute Redressal Consumer Dispute Redressal
Forum, Gomati District Forum, Gomati District Forum, Gomati District
Udaipur Udaipur Udaipur
