Date of Filing: 04.02.2016 Date of Final Order: 18.09.2017
Sri Asish Kumar Senapati, President
This is an application u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows :-
One Sunit Kumar Goswami (hereinafter referred as Complainant) applied for a loan through Bangla Swanirbhar Karma Sansthan Prakalpa Scheme sponsored by the Govt. of West Bengal to the OP No.1 Uttarbanga Kshetriya Gramin Bank in the year 2013-14 with 30% subsidy of the total loan amount to be paid by the Self Help Group & Self Employment Office at Cooch Behar. The OP No.1 Bank accepted the project under BSKP loan of Rs.2,34,450/-. Accordingly, after sanction of the loan amount, the OP No.1 directed the Complainant to deposit IDC of Rs.60,000/- which was deposited on 28.03.14 and 31.03.14. Thereafter, the Bank authority disbursed Rs.1,50,535/- vide Loan Account No.4000121530007253 against the loan amount of Rs.2,34,450/-. The OP No.1 disbursed the amount in two occasions i.e. on 01.12.14 – R.70,000/- and on 29.09.14 –Rs.80,335/- but the Complainant has failed to run his business smoothly for non-disbursement of the rest amount out of Rs.2,34,450/ though he had already spent huge money. The Complainant approached the OP No.1 to disburse the balance amount of Rs.84,115/- but of no result. Moreover, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Cooch Behar informed the Complainant that 30% Govt. subsidy amount was sent to Uttarbanga Kshetriya Gramin Banka vide Memo No.474 dated 12.06.13 but the total amount was not released by Bank authority. Ultimately, the Complainant sent a legal notice by Regd. Post with A/D on 13.04.15 to the Ops and the OP No.1 sent a letter to the Complainant dated 24.04.15 and called him for necessary action at an early date. The Complainant suffered mental pain and agony due to unnecessary harassment caused by the Ops. The cause of action of the case arose on 28.03.14 and still continuing. The Complainant has claimed for a direction upon the Ops to sanction balance amount of Rs.84,115/-, a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation, a sum of Rs.25,000/- compensation for mental pain and agony and unnecessary harassment, Rs.50,000/- for deficiency of service and Rs.5,000/- towards the cost of proceeding.
The OP No.1 and 2 put their appearance and filed w/v on 15.04.16 inter-alia denying the material allegations made out in the complaint contending that the complaint case is not maintainable. It is the version of OP No.1 and 2 that the Complainant deposited Rs.60,000/- in three consecutive dates i.e. 28.03.14, 31.03.14 and 17.09.14. The OP No.1 and 2 also admitted the fact that OP No.1 sanctioned a loan in the scheme of electrical works on 29.09.14 under BSKP Scheme covering project cost of Rs.2,34,450/- out of which Bank loan of Rs. 1,50,335/- was disbursed till date which includes 30% subsidy amount of Rs.70,335/-. It has been asserted by OP No.1 and 2 that OP No.1 inspected the business premises of the Complainant on 09.04.15 through Sankar Ch. Roy, Prakalpa Sahayak to ascertain whether the disbursed amount had properly been utilized by the Complainant or not. Sri Roy found that disbursed loan amount was not utilized properly for the purpose for which the money was disbursed till date. The OP No.1 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 No.1 was not able to disburse further amount of loan. The OP No.1 and 2 also denied the fact of service of legal notice dated 13.04.15 but the Bank authority sent letter to the Complainant but the Complainant did not respond to it. It is the case of OP No.1 and 2 that the Complainant had applied for the loan with malicious intention and utilized the disbursed loan amount for personal gain.
The Op No.1 and 2 prayed for dismissal of the case with cost.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant 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?
- Have the O.Ps any deficiency in service, as alleged by the Complainant?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief/reliefs, as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point Nos.1 & 2
Both the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience.
Ld. Agent for the Complainant submitted that the Complainant is a consumer under the Ops 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. Ld. Agents for the Op Nos.1 and 2 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 BSKP Scheme and an amount of Rs.2,34,450 was sanctioned by OP No.1 in favour of the Complainant. It is submitted that Complainant also deposited Rs.60,000/- under Bank’s lien on 28.03.14 and 31.03.14 respectively but the Bank authority disbursed Rs.1,50,535/- only out of sanctioned amount of Rs.2,34,450/-. He argued that the OP No.1 and 2 have deficiency in service as they did not disburse the balance amount of Rs.84,115/- in spite of sanction of the loan amount of Rs.2,34,450/- He submits that the Complainant has suffered a great loss for non-disbursement of the amount of Rs.84,115/- and the OP No.1 and 2 are liable to pay the compensation for loss of the Complainant. It is further argued that the Complainant has already deposited voucher as per request of the OP No.1 and 2 to show proper utilization of the disbursed amount. He has prayed for necessary order against the Ops.
The Ld. Agent for the Ops submitted that OP No.1 sanctioned Rs.2,34,450/- under BSKP scheme on 29.09.14 and Rs.1,50,335/- including 30% subsidy amount of Rs.70,335/- has already been disbursed to the loan Account of the Complainant. It is contended that the OP No.1 had inspected the business premises of the Complainant through Sankar Ch. Roy, Prakalpa Sahayak who 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 No.1 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 No.1 and 2 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.
Admittedly, the Complainant applied for a loan under BSKP (Ext.1) and the loan amount of Rs.2,34,445/- was sanctioned in favour of the Complainant. Admittedly, the Bank authority disbursed Rs.80,335/- on 29.09.14 and Rs.70,000/- 01.12.14 totaling Rs.1,50,335/-. Admittedly, the Complainant deposited a Fixed Deposit of Rs.60,000/- with the Bank as security. Admittedly, the rest amount of Rs.84,115/- out of Rs.2,34,450/- was not disbursed to the loan Account of the Complainant. It is the version of the Complainant that he properly utilized the disbursed loan amount for the purpose of Electrical Servicing Industry. It appears from the documents filed by the OP No.1 and 2 that the Ops asked the Complainant to submit proper voucher/money receipt for the loan and subsidy disbursed to him and the Complainant has only deposited a voucher dated nil issued by S.B. Electric (Annex. D). The endorsement in the vouche is as follows:
“Received the Electrical materials of amount One Lakh Fifty Thousand and three hundred thirty five only” from Sunit Kumar Goswami, Proprietor, Sayan Electrical Wirings Servicing Concern.
The said voucher can not be used as a receipt/voucher for proper utilization of the disbursed loan amount of Rs.1,50,335/-. It is also the version of the Ops that on inspection, they found that the disbursed loan amount was not properly utilized by the Complainant. 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 is rigid for not filing any voucher/receipt 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 Ops that the Complainant had not utilized the disbursed loan amount properly. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the OP No.1 and 2 have 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 of the OP No.1 and 2 and the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case. In the result, the Complaint case fails. There is no allegations against the O.P.No. 3.
Reasons for delay : The Complaint Case was filed on 04.02.16 and admitted on 12.02.16.The OP Nos. 1&2 put their appearance through their Ld. Agents and filed W/V on15.04.16. 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 OP No.1 and 2 without cost and dismissed ex-parte against Proforma OP No.3 without cost.
Let a 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.
