Hon'ble Mr. Haradhan Mukhopadhyay, President.
Non-sanctioning of loan to the Complainant brought her to this Commission for filing this case, which is stated in her complaint and reproduced in a few words to the effect that the Complainant Smt. Mamani Barman (Debnath) is an unemployed women. The OP Branch Manager, U.B.I. is the Authority to deal with the loan sanction. The Khadi & Village Industry Commission approved P.M.E.G.P scheme of Govt. of India loan in favour of the Complainant for tailoring and preparation of Readymade Garments on 06.03.18. Accordingly, the bank sent a letter to the OP bank Vide Memo No. PMEGP/Back Forwd/KBWB 16177113-2127686 dated 06.03.18 for Govt. subsidy loan i.e. 5% of project cost. After receiving proposal and enquiry the OP bank sanctioned the loan of Rs.5 Lakhs and the OP only contributed term loan of Rs.3.25 Lakhs and issued sanctioned letter dated 12.06.18 with a direction to the Complainant for training under EDP under PMEGP scheme as per the direction of the OP. The Complainant and other four candidates completed 10 days training from 30.07.18 to 09.08.18 against which Khadi & Village Industry Commission issued Certificate No. E-marking No. KBWB 16177113-212-7686 dated 09.08.18. Subsequently, the Branch Manager of OP bank was transferred and the new Branch Manager of the OP bank illegally did not disburse the loan to the Complainant on the ground that the husband of the Complainant was sanctioned loan previously which is still outstanding. But as per record there is no outstanding loan in the name of the husband of the Complainant with the bank. The OP bank illegally did not disburse the said loan money intentionally. Therefore the Complainant filed a written complaint to the Chief Manger of OP bank Kolkata, UBI Siliguri, Banking Ombudsman and Chief Manager, UBI Head Office Mumbai on 08.09.18 through registered post. The Customer Service to OP bank replied to the letter in favour of the Complainant. Finally, the Complainant filed a written complaint to the District Officer of WB Khadi & Village in board, DM, Cooch Behar on 23.08.18. On the advice of the OP the Complainant opened a new account with the OP bank and deposited Rs.500 against which the OP issued (opened) account No.1985010222341. The Complainant again filed a written complaint to the OP on 20.05.19 but the OP did not receive the same intentionally. So, the Complainant filed a written complaint through registered post on 21.05.19. The Complainant purchased some machinery and other article for running her business for her livelihood and accordingly she is suffering financial hardship due to the latches of the OP. The cause of action for the present case arose on 06.03.18 and on subsequent dates.
The OP contested the case denying each and every allegation against them. As per their written version the defence case of the OP in brief is that the OP did not sanction any loan to the Complainant. The Complainant submitted one specimen sanctioned letter dated 12.06.18 which was provisional. After perusing all the documents and after checking the CIBIL it was detected that her all family members such as husband and relative Mrs. Susmita Debnath Paul were NPA customer. For that reason the OP could not finally sanction or disburse any amount of loan to the Complainant. Mr. Sonam Rinchen Bhutia, previous Branch Manager of OP bank erroneously over looked that Smt. Mamoni Barman’s husband Mr. Ashish Debnath had a LABSK loan having account No.198530000310 with the OP bank which turned NPA. Mrs. Susmita Debnath Paul had a LARTTL loan account bearing No.1985300002714 against which the outstanding balance is Rs. 5,35,486.71 who is residing with the Complainant in the same house. The said loan is also under the category of NPA. After provisional sanctioning of the loan to the Complainant the then Branch Manager, Mr. Sonam Rinchen Bhutia was transferred and Mr. Shirshendu Debnath took over the charge of the branch. After thorough checking that her family members were NPA borrowers, so she did not find it to be logical to disburse the loan to the Complainant. The OP has discretionary power to cancel or reject financial advance or loan which was provisionally sanctioned by any previous Branch Manager. After thorough scrutiny it there was any due regarding said provisional sanction the bank could reject the proposal. The Complainant did not accept the terms and conditions of the specimen sanctioned letter dated 12.06.18 nor did they contact with the OP. So the OP had cancelled the loan proposal. The OP therefore prayed for dismissal of the case with cost.
The conflicting facts and the defence case of both the parties persuaded this Commission to ascertain the following points for proper adjudication of the case.
Points for determination
- Whether the case is maintainable in its present form and prayer?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
- To what other relief if any the Complainant is entitled to get?
Decision with reasons
Point No.1.
It is the admitted position that the Complainant was granted a provisional loan under the PMEGP scheme which is to be disbursed through the OP bank subject to certain condition. Thus the relation between the Complainant and the OP is well within the purview of the CP Act. Both the parties are within the jurisdiction of this Commission and the disputed amount of the loan is also within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. Accordingly present case is maintainable in its present form and prayer subject to the decision depending upon the merit of this case which are required to be decided under point No. 2 & 3.
Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in affirmative and decided in favour of the Complainant.
Point Nos. 2 & 3.
These issues relate to ascertainment as to whether the Complainant is entitled to get the award prayed for.
The Complainant in order to establish the case adduced oral evidence in the form of evidence on affidavit and also filed some Annexures being Annexure- A to D.
The OP denied the allegation against them by filing written version and swearing counter affidavit in the form of evidence on affidavit. The best document of the case is the Annexure-B which is the specimen sanctioned letter. There is no denial of the fact that the Complainant was provisionally sanctioned the term loan of Rs.3.25 Lakhs against which overall limit was Rs.5 Lakhs.
It is the positive plea of the Complainant that despite such sanctioning of loan the OP bank did not disburse the loan amount to the Complainant intentionally and illegally.
The OP took the defence plea that it is not a sanction letter, it is just a specimen sanctioned letter of loan subject to fulfilment of other terms and conditions.
It is the further defence plea of the OP that the husband of the Complainant was a defaulter in repayment of previous loan and as such he was a NPA(Non-performing asset) it is also the defence case that the sister-in-law of the Complainant Mrs. Susmita Debnath Paul had an LARTTA loan with outstanding balance of Rs.5,35,486.71 which is under the category of NPA.
Ld. Defence Counsel argued that since there were two relatives one is husband another is relative in the family of the Complainant, so her CIBIL was not satisfactory and as such the Complainant was not entitled to get the loan and her performance was not satisfactory to disburse the loan. Ld Advocate for the Complainant argued that her husband had already repaid the loan against which the Complainant filed document. The alleged failure to repay the loan by sister-in-law cannot be a ground to refuse the said loan to the Complainant.
After perusing the document it transpires that Annexure-D is a document being a certificate issued by bank having Ref. No. UBI/BHE/4/Clearance/2018 wherein it was disclosed inter alia “we are having no dues pending in this account as per our available records”. As per the said certificate the loan of Ashis Debnath appears to have liquidated on 20.08.18.
The said document discloses that the defence plea of NPA against Mr. Ashis Debnath is not acceptable.
However, the Complainant could not file any document to show that the loan of her sister-in-law Susmita Debnath Paul is no more outstanding. Be that as it may, it is found from the record that the background towards repayment of loan by the relative of the Complainant was not satisfactory to the OP.
Let us enquire into whether the refusal to disburse the loan on that ground or other ground is justified or not.
The Defence plea is specific that the said sanctioning of loan was not final and it was just a specimen sanction of the loan which was depending upon fulfilment of other terms and conditions. Annexure-B discloses different terms and conditions of which the attention of the Commission is drawn inter alia against Point No.-ii and xvii. No. ii discloses inter alia that disbursement will be made after execution of banks standard documents.
Ld. Defence Counsel argued that the Complainant did not sign the said specimen sanctioned letter. After scrutiny of the Annexure-B it is found that the signature portion of the borrower remains blank. Without any signature of the Complainant it is stated that “All the terms and conditions are accepted by him”.
Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submitted that after fulfilment of all the conditions the Complainant was approved the said loan. So, the OP cannot deny the said approval against the said argument.
Ld. Defence Counsel argued that the previous Branch Manager inadvertently failed to consider the NPA category of the relative of the Complainant. The subsequent Branch Manager checked it and found it as a ground for not allowing the loan finally.
The argument has reasonable force in as much as sanctioning of loan depends upon the fulfilment of all the terms and conditions. If the banking authority finds that the conditions were not properly fulfilled in that case they give discretion to take a final decision. However, the Complainant could not file any document to show that the loan was actually sanctioned finally. After perusing all the documents it is crystal clear that the said loan was approved provisionally in the form of specimen sanctioned letter.
Be that as it may after perusing all the documents it is found that the Complainant left no stone-unturned to get the loan sanctioned finally through different correspondences. The OP did not file any document to show that it was intimated to the OP that is loan was not finally approved due to any specific ground.
Therefore, the OP bank should reconsider the application of the Complainant and to review her case of sanctioning the loan so that the Complainant gets the benefit of the Government scheme properly. Accordingly, point No. 2 & 3 are decided partly in favour of the Complainant.
Consequently, the case is allowed in part.
Hence, it is
Ordered
That the complaint case No. CC/80/2019 be and the same is allowed on contest in part.
The Complainant do get an award for sum of Rs.10,000/- towards deficiency in service and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost.
The OP, United Bank of India is directed to reconsider the case of the Complainant for sanctioning the loan under the PMEGP on the basis of the fulfilment of the terms and conditions under the said scheme.
The complaint case is accordingly disposed of on contest. D.A. to note in the Trial Register.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the concerned party by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action as per rule.
The copy of the Final Order is also available in the official website: www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
