District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
Dakshin Dinajpur, W. Bengal
(Old Sub-Jail Municipal Market Complex, 2nd Floor, Balurghat Dakshin Dinajpur Pin - 733101)
Telefax: (03522)-270013
Present
Shri Sambhunath Chatterjee - President
Miss. Swapna Saha - Member
Shri Siddhartha Ganguli - Member
Consumer Complaint No. 26/2015
Abhijit Jaiswal
S/o Omprakash Jaiswal
Vill.: Harirampur
P.O. & P.S.: Harirampur,
Mobile No. 9475445685
Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur …………………Complainant(s)
V-E-R-S-U-S
1. The Branch Manager
State Bank of India, Harirampur Branch
PO & PS: Harirampur
Dist.: Dakshin Dinajpur.
2. The General Manager
DIC, Dakshin Dinajpur, Balurghat
DRDA Building
PO & PS: Balurghat
Dist.: Dakshin Dinajpur. …………………Opposite Party / Parties
Ld. Advocate(s):
For complainant ……………… - Shri Biswarup Chatterjee
For OP No. 1 ……………… - Shri Arindam Chatterjee
For OP No. 2 ……………… - Shri Samit Bhowmick
Date of Filing : 21.04.2015
Date of Disposal : 21.09.2015
Contd…P/2
Judgment & Order dt. 21.09.2015
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant is an unemployed youth and in order to build an industry in the name and style of M/s. Jaiswal Atta Mill at Harirampur under the P.M.E.G.P. applied to D.I.C. General Manager, Dakshin Dinajpur at Balurghat. The complainant filed all the relevant documents in support of his claim on 1st August, 2014, the General Manager, D.I.C. Dakshin Dinajpur, Balurghat informed the Bank Manager, SBI, Harirampur Branch for sanctioning for the project to the tune of Rs. 15 lakh. After considering the project submitted by the complainant same was sanctioned and intimation was given to the Bank for the sanctioning of the amount, wherein it was mentioned that the margin money of Rs.5,25,000/- i.e. 35% of total value of project is the subsidy amount for SC category. The complainant, in spite of submitted all the relevant documents and papers the OP-1 did not sanction the said amount within the financial year, 2014-15.
The complainant whenever found that the Bank has not sanctioned the said amount a Lawyer’s notice was sent but no effective step was taken on behalf of the OP-1.
Whenever, the complainant found that the Branch Manager of SBI, Harirampur branch expressed his unwillingness to sanction the said amount the complainant had no other alternative but to file this case seeking relief for necessary direction upon the Bank for providing the loan amount and also for other reliefs.
OP-1 contested the case by filing a written version whereby it was specifically stated that after getting the documents from the complainant the Branch Manager found that land where the establishment would be started not in the name of the complainant and
Contd…P/3
he also did not submit ‘No Objection Certificate’ from other legal heirs as the proposed land belongs to predecessor-in-interest and he failed to submit any lease agreement from all the co-sharers in favour of the complainant.
It was stated by OP-1 that the complainant did not submit the project report authenticated by any C.A. which is required as per the Bank’s terms and conditions as the amount is more than Rs.12 lakh. After scrutinizing the papers regarding the project report for the procurement of the inputs and also for selling of outputs, it was also found that there was no viability in the market and after careful scrutiny the Branch Manager found some irregularities. After consulting to the Superior officers the Branch Manager rejected the proposal and the said rejection was communicated to the complainant by the Branch Manager vide letter dt. 25.3.2015. Since the complainant failed to provide all necessary documents and as per the guidelines of Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India vis-à-vis and the direction of Reserve Bank of India for reducing the NPA, the OP-1 did not approve the scheme and accordingly it was stated that there was no deficiency in service on the part of SBI, Patiram branch.
The pro-forma OP-2 filed a written version whereby it was stated by the OP-2 only forwarded the scheme of the complainant to SBI, Harirampur branch after approval of the district level DIC. Bank is the sole authority regarding sanctioning of the money regarding the said project, therefore the DIC had no role to play.
On the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties following points are to be decided :-
- Is the complainant duty bound in approving the scheme since same was cleared by DIC?
- Has the complainant submitted all the relevant documents as sought for by the OP-1?
- Was there any deficiency in service from the side by OP-1?
Contd…P/4
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
All the points are taken together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. Lawyer for the complainant emphasized that the complainant applied for project and the said project was sanctioned after taken into consideration all the relevant papers submitted by the complainant. The DIC and other members took an interview of the complainant and after being satisfied with the project DIC approved the scheme. The project was sanctioned by the competent authority as per the project sponsored by the Prime Minister’s Employment Generation Programme (PMEGP). In order to show the sanction made by the OP-2, the sanction letter was filed wherefrom it is evident that the project was sanctioned by the competent authority only a forwarding letter was sent to SBI Harirampur branch, Dakshin Dinajpur for compliance of the sanction made by the competent authority, therefore, the bank cannot stand on the way by demanding some extraneous matters namely some documents which are not at all required whenever the scheme itself was sanctioned by the competent authority. Ld. Lawyer also brought to our notice that in spite of submission of all the relevant documents the OP-1 deliberately denied claim of the complainant for which the complainant had suffered both mentally and financially and accordingly the complainant has prayed for relief from this Forum.
OP-1 argued that the Bank is the sanctioning authority of loan and it is the incumbent duty upon the Bank to scrutiny all the relevant papers, since papers submitted by the complainant were not in conformity with the demand of the bank for having sanction of the loan from the Bank, the bank had no other alternative but to seek for some documents which could not be provided by the complainant resulting in rejection of the prayer of the loan as claimed by the complainant.
Contd…P/5
Apart from the said fact since the amount of loan sought for more than Rs.12 lakh, the Branch Manager after consultation with the superior officer sought for those documents and on failure to provide those documents as per norms in sanctioning of the loan, the Branch Manager had no other alternative but to reject the prayer of the complainant and loan was not sanctioned.
Ld. Lawyer for the DIC only supported the OP-1 and also admitted that on failure to provide all the documents the OP-1 did not provide the loan for which the complainant cannot be given any relief by this Forum.
Considering the submission of the respective parties it appears that the complainant applied for approval of the scheme to the DIC and the DIC sanctioned the scheme as submitted by the complainant and the OP-1 was asked to consider strictly on its merit if found viable and bankable of the said letter was issued by the competent authority i.e. General Manager District Industries Centre, Dakshin Dinajpur, Balurghat. In view of such direction given by the General Manager, DIC the Bank scrutinized the papers submitted by the complainant and found that the documents filed by the complainant were not in conformity with norms for sanctioning of loan by the bank. In case of sanctioning of loan and accordingly the OP-1 asked the complainant to provide necessary documents. Since the complainant failed to produce those documents including ownership of the land for the establishment of the project by the complainant as well as the project was not authenticated by the competent person i.e. CA, the bank was quite justified not to sanction the loan in favour of the complainant.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case we hold that the complainant failed to satisfy to the OP-1 for obtaining the loan from the Bank and the Bank rightly asked for those documents in
Contd…P/6
order to safeguard the loan and also to follow guidelines of Ministry of Finance Govt. of India as well as the direction of Reserve Bank of India for reducing NPA, the OP-1 had no other alternative but to reject the claim of the complainant for having sanction of the loan by the Bank. Accordingly, we hold that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1, corollary to that we conclude that the case as filed by the complainant is a misconceived one and he will not be entitled to get any relief from this Forum.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the instant petition of complaint CC No.26/2014 is dismissed on contest without any cost.
Let a plain copy of this order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost.
Dictated & corrected
………Sd/-….…….
(S. N. Chatterjee)
President
We concur,
……Sd/-..…… ………Sd/-……..
(S. Saha) (S. Ganguli)
Member Member
- Date when free copy was issued ……………………
- Date of application for certified copy ……………………
- Date when copy was made ready ……………………
- Date of delivery ……………………
FREE COPY [Reg. 18(6)]
- Mode of dispatch ……………………
- Date of dispatch ……………………
-x-
