West Bengal

Dakshin Dinajpur

CC/79/2018

Smt. Sampa Saha, D/O- Shyam Sundar Saha - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, Balurghat Branch - Opp.Party(s)

Sudip Chatterjee

31 Jul 2019

ORDER

Facts of the complaint case in brief are that the complainant is a young unemployed lady who after completion of graduation tried to support financially to her family by starting a grocery shop in her father’s house. Due to financial incapacity she applied for a loan for her grocery business under subsidized BSKP scheme of the government to the tune of Rs. 249000/- out of which subsidy amount was Rs. 74700/- and after scrutinizing her loan application and documents subsidy amount has been approved by the concerned authority of the government and  they sent the amount to the Op bank for disbursement along with the loan amount. In the mean time the complainant being an unemployed youth got an offer for study at Bidhan Chandra krishi Viswavidyalaya at Bankura for a short course of one year and she availed the opportunity   for completion of one year course and engaged his father to look after her business and when she came to house on leave she personally engaged herself in her grocery business.

On 30.07.2018 the OP bank informed the complainant that Op is not able to sanction and disburse the loan amount and returned back the subsidy amount stating that on physical verification it revealed that there is no existence of grocery shop of the complainant in her fathers house  and only some bags of poppy seeds were kept in a room and there is another grocery business in the said house running by the mother of the complainant and it has been further stated that the complainant is engaged in further study and she is not entitled to get any loan and subsidy amount was returned back.

It has been asserted by the complainant that she is still unemployed and trying for higher education and her grocery business is still in existence but the Op bank did not enquire the place properly. It has been further stated by the complainant that there is no bar for taking any higher education for a business man and without any cogent ground op refused to grant bank loan to the complainant and there is clear deficiency in service on the part of the Op bank. Hence this case.     

   

            Notice was issued upon the Op and the opposite party entered appearance and contested the case by filing a written version wherein the material averments made in the complaint are denied and it has been contended inter-alia that the instant case is not maintainable. It has been submitted by the opposite party that the concerned authority of government has sent the proposal of the complainant to the Op bank and after considering the materials and documents the then manager of the Bank preliminary gave his consent for sanction of the loan in favour of the complainant subject to fulfillment of the conditions as mentioned in the government order in respect of the BSKP loan and it is pre-condition to sanction the loan amount that the applicant must be unemployed youth have a space/for running /her business and the fund should not be diverted otherwise.

 It is has been further stated by the opposite party bank that after receiving subsidy amount of Rs. 74700/- from the government the present branch manager of the Op bank has inspected the so called unit of the complainant for disbursement of the loan amount and during inspection the branch manager did not find any grocery shop in the said unit and the complainant was not found at the time of inspection and on enquiry the father of the complainant informed the branch manager that his daughter Shampa Saha is presently studying under agriculture college and on inspection some bags of poppy seeds have been found in a corner of a room and as per banks record the mother of the complainant has a grocery business in the same place and she took and maintained credit/overdraft facility from the op bank and the stock of the said unit has already been hypothecated to the bank since long and nothing other relevant things were found in support of the complaint case, Moreover complainant admitted in her complaint that presently she is running her study under Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya in Bankura and she is not unemployed in true sense. It has been further stated by the Op Bank that on inspection when the bank manager was satisfied that the complainant has/had no business unit or grocery shop and she is studying in university. So, the bank manager rejected the loan proposal of the complainant and informed the said facts to the complainant by his letter dt. 30.07.2018 and the bank manager also returned the subsidy amount to the concerned authority of government, and after return of the amount the government authority did not raise any objection regarding the rejection of loan proposal. It has been asserted by the Op that at present the NPA is increasing day by day so that when the bank sanction any loan, the bank authority should take due care and caution so that the increasing rate of NPA should be stopped and the public money should not be used otherwise or diverted the fund. It has been further contended by the Op bank that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and as such the instant complaint petition of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with cost.    

In this case complainant has submitted her examination-in-chief supported by affidavit and the following documents by list.

1. Two certificate of enlistment issued by Balurghat Municipalaty.
2.  Letter dt. 02.08.2018 sent by the complainant addressed to the Bank Manager of Syndicate Bank, Balurghat Branch.
3. Customer copy in respect of sanction of submission of loan scheme under SVSKP 2017-18 by Syndicate Bank, Balurghat Branch.
4. Photo copy of Birth Certificate.
5. Photo copy of Aadhaar Card.
6. Photo copy of the Enrolment of the complainant in employment bank.

 

On the side of the Op the following documents have been submitted by firisti.

 

1. Inspection report dt. 30.07.2018 of the Branch manager Syndicate Bank.
2. Photograph of unit of borrower Shampa Saha.
3. Photograph of the unit of the mother of Shampa Saha
4. Letter to municipal youth officer by branch manager. 1 page received by Shampa Saha.
5. Letter of Shampa Saha to Branch Manager Syndicate Bank.
6. Letter to M.D W.B S.C. Ltd by Branch manager Syndicate Branch balurghat.
7. Returned chaque issued by Syndicate Branch.

 

                Points for discussion

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer within the meaning under Section 2 (I) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of Op?
3. Is the complainant entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?

 

                                                DECISION  WITH  REASONS

 

Point No.1             

            This issue is not disputed by the Ld. Advocate of the Op during his course of argument. This Forum has gone through the materials and evidence on record and after going through the entire facts and circumstances of the case with regard to the materials and evidence of the parties on record this Forum is of the view that the complainant is a consumer within the meaning under Section 2 (I) (d) of the consumer Protection Act 1986.

Point No. 2 and 3

            Both the issues are taken up together for discussion for the sake of convenience and brevity.

            In order to substantiate the case the complainant herself has submitted her examination in chief as PW-1 supported by affidavit and certain documents.

            It is not disputed that the complainant is an unemployment youth and she applied for a trade license in her name for running grocery business and she obtained the same from the Balurghat Municipality.

            This is the specific case of the complainant that after obtaining a trade license she started a grocery business at her fathers place (fathers residence) and for that business she applied for a loan under subsidized BSKP scheme of the government to the tune of Rs. 249000/- out of which subsidy amount was Rs, 74700/- and after scrutiny her application and documents loan application has been approved by the concerned authority of the government and sent it to the Op bank for disbursement.

            The further case of the complainant is that when her application for loan was proceeded for sanction she got an offer for study at Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya at Bankura for a short period of one year and she availed the opportunity for completion of one year course and engaged her father to look after her grocery business and when she come to home on leave she personally look after her business.

            The further case of the complainant is that on 30.07.2018 the opposite party informed that they are unable to sanction and disburse the loan amount and returned back the subsidy amount.

The opposite party on the other hand admitted that the concerned authority of government has send the proposal of the complainant to the bank and after considering the material documents the previous manager of the bank preliminary gave his consent for sanction the loan amount in favour of the complainant subject to fulfill the conditions as mentioned in the government order in respect of the BSPK loan  and it is pre condition to sanction of the loan amount that the applicant is a unemployment youth have a place/unit for running his/her business and the fund should not be diverted otherwise.

            Now let us see whether the complainant could fulfill the above conditions for getting the BSPK loan and if so, whether the Op bank has refused to sanction and disburse the loan amount and returned back subsidy illegally and arbitrarily.

            In this case the Op bank has submitted the inspection report dt.30.07.2018 of the branch manager and two colored photograph in respect of the unit of the borrower Shampa Saha and the unit of the mother of Shampa Saha. From the comments of the visiting offers appears in the inspection report we find that during inspection of the so called unit of the complainant Shyamsundar Saha, the father of the complainant showed the branch manager of the Op bank 7-8 bags of pappy seeds (Posto) kept outside of a room in a corridor area saying that it belongs to his daughter. The mother of the complainant named Putul Saha is holding an overdraft A/C No 95521400000293 with the bank since last one and half year and the said stock is already hypotheticated to the Op bank. Therefore, the Op bank could neither find stock nor any running unit held by shampa Saha and Sampa Saha was not present during inspection and on enquiry her father told that she is studying in a college outside Balurghat and she visits home every 4 months and she is presently residing near her college which is outside of station. From the said inspection report it further appears that father of the complainant Shyamsundor Saha during inspection told that he is only interests in the subsidy amount and he wants to purchase Laptop worth Rs.45000/- -35000/- from the subsidy amount for his daughter and he has no requirements of availing loan. The only way to avail the government subsidy, is through loan, his repayment history in CIBIL Report is not good, therefore, the loan is applied in his daughters name. He even asked the inspecting party that whether it is possible to get only the subsidy amount without taking the loan which they clearly denied him. Taking into consideration all the above factors the loan application is not considered  viable for sanction.

On perusal of the first photograph it appears that 10-12 bags of poppy seeds (Posto) are stake in a place which shown by the father of the complainant to the branch manager saying that the same belongs to his daughter but it is not clear as to why those 10-12 bags of Posto were kept there. The Op Bank claimed that the said stock is already hypothecated to the bank. The second photograph is showing the unit of the mother of the complainant Shampa Saha.

The enquiry report as well as photographs submitted on the side of the Bank clearly shows that there is no existence of any stock or running unit held by the complainant at her father palce. Complainant also admitted in her complaint and examination in chief that presently she is continuing her study under Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyala, Bankura so there is no hesitation to hold that the complainant is a student and  she is studying under Bidhan Chandra Krisihi Viswavidyalaya Bankura  and she is staying there  in connection with her study. Moreover, we find that there is no existence of grocery shop or business unit of the complainant at her fathers  place rather we find that mother of the complainant is running a grocery shop in the said place. The complainant with some ill motive tried to show the place of business of her mother and the grocery items available there belongs to her in order to grave the bank loan and subsidy. The branch manager on inspection being satisfied has rightly rejected the loan proposal of the complainant and retuned the subsidy amount to the concerned authority of the government.

It is pertinent to mention that when the government money is involved in any loan, it is duty of the manager to take much more caution to sanction the loan amount. In this case the branch manager of the Op bank rightly performed his duty by inspecting the so called unit of the complainant before disbursement of the loan amount and thus stopped the misuse of the public money which could be used otherwise or diverted by the complainant by misleading the bank as well as the concerned authority of government.

            In view of the above findings this Forum is of the view that the complainant has miserably failed to prove her case.

In the result the case of complainant fails.   

 

Hence, it is

                                                O R D E R E D

 

            That the Complaint Case No.79 of 2018 be and the same is dismissed on contest without cost.

            Let a plain copy of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith free of cost.