Hon'ble Mr. Haradhan Mukhopadhyay, President.
The concise fact of the case of Complainant is that the Complainant Makbul Hossain applied for a loan from the OP bank Branch Manager, Uttar Banga Kshetriya Gramin Bank for opening a scheme on “Bangla Swanirbhar Karmasansthan Prakalpa Atmamaryarda” “Pole and Ring” making(Cement). To obtain the said loan Complainant met with the Branch Manager of the OP bank for SVSKP loan for the financial year 2012-13 and filed documents. The O.P. No.1 the Branch Manager, Uttar Banga Kshetriya Gramin Bank assured the Complainant that he was entitled for the said loan and he has to deposit security money with an advice to apply for the loan. On the basis of the prayer of the Complainant alongwith the documents to the BDO, Cooch Behar-I through OP bank for loan amount of Rs.2,87,000/-(project cost Rs.4,10,000/- it was processed). The O.P. No.1 asked the Complainant to deposit Rs.41,000/- as marginal money and security deposit Rs.70,000/-. The Complainant accordingly deposited the said money on 25.02.13. Despite fulfilment of all formalities the concerned authority did not grant the loan. So, the Complainant again filed letter to the OP on 22.12.14, 26.06.15, 27.08.15 and 24.11.15. But all his efforts were in vain. Therefore, the Complainant submitted an application under RTI Act on 30.11.15 to the OP on two questions:- (i) “Whether the subsidy has been issued by the concerned authority towards him or not. If yes, for how much amount. (ii) When the aforesaid loan would be allowed to draw? Please inform the stipulated date and time”. Thereafter the O.P. No.2 the Regional Manager, Uttar Banga Kshetriya Gramin Bank sent a letter to the Complainant vide memo No. OPRS/40/2015-16/875 dated 08.01.16. The Complainant came to know that the subsidy for Rs.82,000/- had been received by O.P. No.1 through cheque dated 10.09.14 but the said loan amount had been refunded on 29.10.15 as there was no conversion certificate on land alongwith the loan prayer and also refunded the marginal money of Rs.41,000/- in the Complainants account. Thereafter the Complainant filed a letter to the BL & LRO, Cooch Behar-I for obtaining conversion certificate of land where he intended to open his project in January, 2016. The Complainant obtained the said Bastu certificate on 02.09.16. Having received the conversion certificate the Complainant submitted to the DM, Cooch Behar for said subsidy. Thereafter the Branch Manager, Uttar Banga Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Jiranpur Branch received a letter from the DM, Cooch Behar with a copy to Complainant. The Complainant came to know from the letter that “The Branch Manager i.e. O.P. No.1 had been requested in the meeting on 23.06.16 and it was proposed that if the Complainant submits the conversion certificate of land he will get the benefit of the SVSKP loan”. The beneficiary submitted the conversion certificate. So they were refunding the cheque bearing No.035503 dated 29.10.16 for Rs.82,000/- for disbursement of the loan to Makbul Hossain the Complainant with enclosure of original bank draft for Rs.82,000/-. After 11th months the O.P. No.1 sent a letter to the Complainant stating that the Complainant did not produce necessary documents for SVSKP loan and requested to submit the necessary documents within 7 days otherwise the Complainant would not get the said loan. Since the Complainant had already submitted all documents to the O.P. No.1 so he was entitled to get the loan. The O.P. No.1 tried to mean that if the Complainant deposit Rs.2 Lakhs as security money then the O.P. No.1 will sanction the said loan to the Complainant. There is no mentioning for getting the loan that 5% would be deposited. The Complainant submitted an application to the O.P. No.2 on 28.08.17 with a copy to DM, Cooch Behar on 28.08.17. At that time the Complainant was 42 years old i.e. bellow 45 years. So he is entitled to get the loan. Thus the activities of the O.Ps make it clear that they are not willing to grant the loan to the Complainant. So the Complainant filed a petition to the Assistant Director, CA & FBP, Cooch Behar on 06.02.16 for redressal of his grievance but no result was achieved there. The cause of action for the present case arose on 08.01.16 and on different dates which is still continuing. The Complainant therefore prayed for an award for Rs.2,87,000/- towards sanctioning of loan with subsidy, Rs.2 Lakhs towards loss suffered for not starting his business, Rs.1 Lakh for mental pain and agony, Rs.50,000/- deficiency in service and Rs.15,000/- towards litigation cost.
Both the O.P. No.1 & 2 contested the case by filing written version denying each and every allegation. The positive defence case is that the present case is not maintainable, bad for defect of parties and the Complainant is not a consumer under the C.P. Act. It is the norms that the Complainant has to deposit margin money. The granting of loan for a scheme is dependent on completion of a thorough processing for banking norms. The Complainant did not co-operate with the O.P. No.1. Despite several requests through different letters vide memo No. Jr./37/260/R-loan dated 11.08.17 preceded by so many verbal requests from the O.P. No.1 but the Complainant did not meet with the O.P. No.1 within 7 days. The Complainant filed an application with some supporting documents to the BDO, Cooch Behar-I and thereafter deposited Rs.41,000/- as margin money. Still the application was incomplete having without conversion certificate. Despite this deficiency the concerned Govt. Department granted subsidy for Rs.82,000/-. So, the subsidy amount granted vide cheque dated 10.09.14 had to be refunded on 29.10.15 and Rs.41,000/-(Margin money) was returned in favour of the Complainant account and the said SVSKP loan suffered natural death. Thereafter the Complainant obtained conversion certificate and submitted prayer on 02.09.16 to the DM, Cooch Behar for the said loan. The DCC meeting recommended the Complainant for the SVSKP loan and refunded the cheque for Rs.82,000/- bearing cheque No.035503 dated 29.10.16. The DM, Cooch Behar forwarded copy of conversion certificate and O.Ps letter No.BR/JR/35/444/SVSKP/29/10/II to the O.P. No.1 who talked to the Complainant for filling fresh application with the aforesaid documents. He was asked to enter into a formal agreement, D.P. notes etc but the Complainant did not turn up. So, the OP asked the Complainant to attained bank within 7 days. Instead the complying that the letter of the OP dated 11.08.17 the Complainant filed a fresh letter to O.P. No.2 which became infractuous. The OP never demanded the said money as alleged by the Complainant. Thereafter, the Complainant again wrote a letter to the Consumer Affairs Department. The OP became helpless in spite of their sincere desire to sanction the loan. The OP claimed that the case is liable to be dismissed with cost.
Disputed pleadings of the parties vis-a-vis the question of fact and law involved in this case demand for ascertainment of the following point for proper adjudication of the case.
Points for consideration
- Whether the Complainant is a consumer under the C.P. Act and the case is maintainable or not?
- 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.
The OP challenged the case as not maintainable in its present form and law but could not specify any ground as to why the case is not maintainable.
After perusing the pleadings of the parties it is crystal clear that the Complainant Makbul Hossain applied for a loan which was delayed due to not filing the conversion certificate but subsequently it was sanctioned by the DM on submission of conversion of certificate. Thus the relation between the Complainant and the OP comes well within the purview of the C.P. Act. So the Complainant is considered as a consumer under the OP as per the C.P. Act.
The Complainant seems to have deposited a particular money for getting the loan from the OP bank which the latter received. The allegation is that the said loan was not disbursed without sufficient reason.
The last letter issued by the DM, Cooch Behar suggest that on fulfilment of the final condition of submission of conversion certificate the administrative authority having been satisfied ultimately referred it to the OP bank for sanctioning the loan.
The quantum of relief claimed also falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.
Thus having perused the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on case record its stands well established that the case is not barred by any provisions of C.P. Act and accordingly it is maintainable in law.
Point No.1 is therefore decided in favour of the Complainant.
Points No.2 & 3.
These points relate to ascertainment of entitlement of the relief prayed for by the Complainant.
It is the specific allegation of the Complainant Makbul Hossain that he applied for a loan of Rs.2,87,000/- to the OP, Uttar Banga Kshetriya Gramin Bank against which a subsidy of Rs.82,000/- was granted and received by the OP of cheque on 10.09.14 but it was refunded on 29.10.15 as there was no conversion certificate of the land. The defence plea of the OP is that the loan application suffered from lack of vital documents like conversion certificate from collector of Cooch Behar. So the cheque had to be refunded on 29.10.15.
It is the admitted position that the DM, Cooch Behar forwarded the conversion certificate to the OP bank but the OP asked the Complainant to file a fresh application with the aforesaid documents.
Ld. Advocate for the Complainant argued that the DM Office by its letter memo No. 291/COBBSKP/2016(subsidy return) dated 05.09.16 refunded the cheque for disbursement of loan to the Complainant.
A close scrutiny of the said letter dated 05.09.16 issued by District SHG Officer, CB discloses that the DM Office categorically stated that the beneficiary (Complainant) submitted his conversion certificate of land as desired by the bank. So they refunded the cheque bearing No.035503 dated 29.10.15 for Rs.82,000/- for disbursement of the loan to Makbul Hossain.
It is the best document which goes in favour of the Complainant. So from the said best documentary evidence it is evident that despite initially not filing the conversion certificate of land it was subsequently procured which was duly accepted by the District SHG of DM Office and directed for disbursement of the refunded subsidy.
So, the OP had no reason to disobey the direction of the Office of the DM.
Ld. Advocate for the Complainant rightly argued that the bank cannot refuse to disburse the loan granted by the loan sanctioning authority.
The argument has reasonable force in as much as the bank is the executing authority. Since the administrative Office had directed for disbursement of subsidy so the OP bank ought to have approve it.
The case record further discloses that there was no fresh direction by the administrative department for obtaining fresh application from the Complainant for obtaining the said subsidy. In absence of any document proved by the OP for fulfilment of such condition afresh the defence plea and their further direction for filing fresh application by the Complainant has got no leg to stand and as such it is not acceptable as per the provisions of law as well as the given facts and circumstances.
In the backdrop of the aforesaid discussion and assessment of evidence vis-à-vis the observation made herein above the Commission comes to the finding that the arbitrary decision taken by the OP bank tantamounts to deficiency in service.
In the result the Points No.2 & 3 are answered in favour of the Complainant.
Consequently, the complaint case succeeds on contest with cost.
Hence, it is
Ordered
That the complaint case No. CC/38/2018 be and the same is allowed on contest with cost Rs.5,000/-.
The Complainant do get an award for a sum of Rs.2,87,000/- towards sanctioning of loan with subsidy, Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and deficiency in service, Rs.10,000/- towards mental pain and agony.
The OP bank being O.P. No.1 & 2 are jointly and/or severally liable to pay the said amount. The O.Ps are further directed to sanction the said loan to pay said sum of Rs.3,52,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs fifty two thousand only) to the Complainant within 30 (Thirty) days from the date of passing the Final Order failing which the entire award money shall carry an interest @ 6% per annum from the date of passing the Final Order till the date of realization thereof.
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.
