Sri Rabindra Dey, Ld. Advocate............for the Complainant,
Sri Surajit Dutta, Ld. Advocate…………………for the O.P.
Date of Filing: 10-08-2016 Date of Final Order: 23-02-2018
Sri Debangshu Bhattacharjee, Member
FINAL ORDER
This is an application under Section 12 of the CP Act, 1986 filed by one Kajal Kar against the Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Cooch Behar Branch, praying for direction upon the OP to sanction balance loan amount of Rs.5,32,000/- and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for failing to run his business, Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental pain and agony, Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service and Rs.10,000/- for litigation cost.
The case of the Complainant in short is that he is an unemployed youth applied for sanctioning a loan of Rs.10,52,000/- under PMEGP to the OP in order to start a BREAD AND BAKERY FACTORY for his livelihood. The D.I.C approved the proposal of the petitioner. After that the complainant applied for a loan through “PRIME MINISTER EMPLOYMENT GENERATION PROGRAMME (PMEGP)” sponsored by the Govt. of West Bengal to the OP Punjab National Bank in the financial year 2013-14 with 30% subsidy of the total loan amount to be paid by the DIC Cooch Behar. The OP Bank accepted the project under PMGEP loan of Rs.10,52,000/-. Accordingly, after sanction of the loan amount, the OP directed the Complainant to deposit FD and Mortgage the deed of land which was deposited with the bank. Thereafter, the Bank Authority disbursed Rs.5,20,000/- vide Loan Account No.656600SG00000090 against the total loan amount of Rs.10,52,000/-.
The OP disbursed the amount in three occasions but the Complainant has failed to run his business smoothly for non-disbursement of the rest amount out of Rs.10,52,000/- though he had already spent huge money i.e. purchase of land, made construction etc. The Complainant approached the OP to disburse the balance amount of Rs.5,32,000/- but of no result. Moreover, the DIC authority, Cooch Behar informed the Complainant that 30% Govt. subsidy amount was sent to OP Bank, till date the total amount was not released by Bank authority. Ultimately, the Complainant sent a letter to the OP and the OP gave no response to the Complainant. The Complainant suffered mental pain and agony due to unnecessary harassment caused by the OP.
The cause of action of the case arose in the month of March 2015 and is still continuing. The matter was referred to the Consumer Affairs Department, Cooch Behar for mediation between the parties but, the matter was not settled. Accordingly, the Complainant has filed the instant application for redressal.
The OP put its appearance and filed W/V inter-alia denying the material allegations made out in the complaint, contending that the complaint case is not maintainable. The OP admitted the fact that the OP sanctioned a loan in the scheme of bread and bakery factory under PMEGP Scheme covering project cost of Rs.10,52,000/- out of which Bank loan of Rs.5,20,000/- was disbursed till date. It has been asserted by the OP that they inspected the business premises of the Complainant to ascertain whether the disbursed amount had properly been utilized by the Complainant or not and the OP found that disbursed loan amount was not utilized properly for the purpose for which the money was disbursed till date. The OP on various occasions intimated the Complainant to submit proper voucher/bill/quotation/Invoice etc. but till date, no such authentic document was produced by the Complainant, for which the OP was not able to disburse further amount of loan. The OP also pleaded that the complainant did not convert his land from agricultural land to commercial land. It is the case of OP that the Complainant had applied for the loan with malicious intention and utilized the disbursed loan amount for personal gain. The OP prayed for dismissal of the case with cost.
On the basis of above versions, the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant a Consumer as per provision under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Has the O.P any deficiency in service, as alleged by the Complainant?
- Whether the Complainant entitled to get any relief/reliefs, as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
We have gone through the record very carefully and perused the evidence on affidavit of the parties along with relevant documents. Perused also the written argument filed by the parties and heard the argument advanced by the Ld. Agents of the parties at length.
Point Nos.1 & 2.
Both the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience.
Ld. Agent for the Complainant has submitted that the Complainant is a consumer under the OP as defined under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986 and this Forum has territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The Ld. Agent for the OP submitted nothing on the above two points. On perusal of the complaint petition, w/v, evidence on affidavit and the documents on record, we find that the Complainant is a consumer under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986 and this Forum has both pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Both the points are thus disposed of in favour of the Complainant.
Point Nos.3 & 4.
The Ld. Agent for the Complainant submitted that the Complainant applied for a loan under PMEGP Scheme and an amount of Rs.10,52.000/- was sanctioned by the OP in favour of the Complainant but the Bank authority disbursed Rs.5,20,000/- only out of the sanctioned amount . He argues that the OP has deficiency in service as they did not disburse the balance amount of Rs.5,32,000/- in spite of sanction of the loan amount of Rs.10,52,000/- He submits that the Complainant has suffered a great loss for non-disbursement of the amount and the OP is liable to pay compensation for loss of the Complainant. He has prayed for necessary order against the OPs.
The Ld. Agent for the OP has submitted that the OP sanctioned Rs.10,52,000/- under PMEGP scheme and Rs.5,20,000/- has been disbursed to the loan Account of the Complainant. It is contended that the OP had inspected the business premises of the Complainant and found that the disbursed loan amount had not been properly utilized for the purpose for which the money was disbursed. It is urged that the OP asked the Complainant to submit authentic voucher, bill, Invoice etc. for further disbursement of the loan amount but the Complainant did not pay any heed, resulting in non-disbursement of the rest loan amount. It is submitted that the OP had no deficiency in service and the public money cannot be misused by disbursing full amount of loan without proper utilization of the amount already disbursed. He has prayed for disposal of the complaint with cost.
According to the complaint petition, evidence on affidavit and in the written argument, the complainant pleaded that he has already spent huge money for purchase of land, making construction etc. According to the sanction letter (Annexure-13/2 page 5) it is clearly stated that “as per KVICs norms, beneficiary should own land and therefore land cost should not be included in the project cost”. In the project there was no provision of purchase of land. The complainant has clearly violated the project norms by utilising the loan amount for the purpose of purchase of land.
It is the discretion of the Bank authority to disburse the loan amount on observing necessary formalities so that proper utilization of disbursed amount can be made by loanee. The money disbursed by the Bank authority is the public money which cannot be allowed to be mis-utilized by any one.
In the present case, the Complainant has not been able to submit any voucher/receipt to the O.P. to establish that he had properly utilized the disbursed loan amount. Not only that, the Bank authority had found that the Complainant had not utilized the disbursed loan amount properly. There is no allegation that the person who went to the premises of the Complainant for inspection had any personal grudge with the Complainant. In the circumstances, we rely on the version of the OP that the Complainant had not utilized the disbursed loan amount properly. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the OP has no deficiency in service for non-disbursement of the rest amount of the loan. We hold that the Complainant has failed to establish deficiency in service against the OP and the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case. In the result, the Complaint case fails.
Reasons for delay: The Complaint Case was filed on 10.08.2016 and admitted on 19.08.2016. The OP put its appearance through their Ld. Agent on 19.02.2016 and filed W/V on 27.03.2017. This Forum has taken its best endeavour to dispose of the Complaint Case as expeditiously as possible in view of Section 13(3A) of the C.P. Act and day to day orders will speak for itself.
Fees paid are correct.
Hence,
It is Ordered,
That the complain case be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest against O.P without cost.
Let plain copy of this Order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by Post forthwith, free of cost for information & necessary action. The copy of the Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
