Judgment On 16.10.2006
Present : Shri B.K. Samanta, President
Shri Kumar Mukhopadhyay, Member
Smt. Jyotsna Sarkar, Member
This is a case for claim and compensation.
The complainant’s case briefly stated is that the complainant had applied for a loan of Rs. 4,14,440/- to the West Bengal Khadi and Village Industries Board for implementation of his tailoring and garment manufacturing unit, a schedule industry of their Rural Employment Generation Programme popularly known as Margin Money Scheme. The complainant is an unemployed person and he applied for loan for maintaining his livelihood. The complainant complied all provisions for obtaining the said loan and deposited fixed deposit certificate valued Rs.2,00,000/-. The petitioner has sound technical knowledge over the said project. The OP No.1 sanctioned the petitioner’s proposal dt. 15.02.2003 for financial assistance including margin money for the purpose of implementation of tailoring and ready made garments manufacturing unit and intimated the same by his letter dt. 25.02.2003 and the OP No.1 agreed to pay a loan of Rs. 4,14,440/- to the petitioner. On 01.03.03 the OP No.1 paid Rs. 90,000/- to the petitioner as MT Loan. On 12.03.2003, the complainant undergone and completed the training course of 3 days Rural Entrepreneurship Development Programme for the beneficiaries of REGP Scheme of Khadi and Village Industries Commission (Ministry of ARI, Govt. of India) organized by West Bengal Consultancy Organization Ltd. and sponsored by the State Office, KVIC, Kolkata and reported the same to the OP No. 1 on 13.03.2003 as per terms and conditions of financial assistance. As per Loan Agreement and as per scheme, the OP No.1 is bound to pay the balance sum of money Rs. 3,24,440/- of the sanctioned loan of Rs. 4,14,440/- after completion of aforesaid training. On repeated requests the OP No.1 did not pay any further sum. On 13.03.2003 the OP No.1 ought to pay Rs.1,99,700/- as MT Loan. The OP No.1 paid Rs.90,000/- earlier out of Rs.2,89,700/- as total MT Loan for fixed assets. The OP No.1 ought to have paid Rs.1,99,700/- out of MT Loan of Rs. 2,89,700/- first then would have issued cash credit loan of Rs. 1,24,740/- for working capital. To the contrary the OP No.1 in a malafide way issue cash credit loan prior to disburse Mt Loan. As a result, the petitioner has to suffer a loss of huge amount and is facing much difficulties for conducting his business ON 26.03.2004 the OP No.1 showed the payment of Rs.1,99,250/- as MT Loan but he deducted Rs.1,48,667/- (showing repayment of cash credit loan principle amount) of Rs.1,20,000/- Plus accrued interest of Rs.16,134/- along with interest of Rs.12,535/- against MT Loan of Rs.90,000/- (previously paid on 01.03.2003). In fact OP No.1 gave Rs.50,583/- in hand to the petitioner. The petitioner submits that due to deduction of Rs.1,48,667/- he had to suffer damages in his business. The OP neglected to pay the loan amount in due course of time and as such the petitioner is entitled to get the damages of his business of Rs.4,00,000/-. Under the circumstances, the complainant prays for an award of Rs.4,00,000/-. As compensation for damages of business and for costs.
The OP contested the case by filing a written statement wherein he denied the material allegation of the case and stated that the petitioner applied to the Bank on 15.02.2003 to sanction loan amounting to Rs.4,14,440/- under Margin Money (KVIB) Scheme against the approved project cost and the Bank Authority also sanctioned the loan on 20.02.2003. The application for loan was for : Land Rs. 90,450/-, shed & building Rs.1,99,250/- and working capital Rs.1,24,740/-. The petitioner established this project on his own previously constructed building for which he has/had no requirement for loan at that time for construction of shed and building. He only drew Rs.90,000/- as M.T. loan to purchase the Machinery & equipment and he also submitted the voucher to that effect. The petitioner completed his project taking the above mentioned M.T. loan as he had been continuing this project on his own land and building since02.02.200. It was well known to the petitioner that the Bank would claim interest on M.T. Loan which was sanctioned against Margin Money up to the date of receiving the amount of margin money from KVIB as per Bank norms if he drew the loan. So to save the interest he only drew sanctioned Cash Credit loan after drawing the 1st installment of M.T. Loan. The petitioner willingly waited for sanctioning margin money from the KVIB and after sanctioning the Margin Money, Rs.1,23,535/- instead of Rs.1,99,250/- he drew the rest portion of sanctioned MT Loan and repaid the Cash Credit Loan along with accrued interest of previously drawn MT Loan to save the interest. There was no question of deduction from the Loan amount. The petitioner also repaid part of the MT Loan after this incident. After running his business for one year the petitioner applied to the Bank to renew his Cash Credit Loan for a further period of one year along with the stock statement as on 31.08.2004 and trading account for the year 2003-2004 which proved the profitability of his project/business. The Bank Authority renewed the Cash Credit Loan Limit for further one year and the Cash Credit Loan of Rs.1,20,000/- on 09.10.2004 and 19.10.2004. There was no transaction in this loan account after the said dates. At present Bank loan due to the petitioner is as follows. The petitioner only tried to avoid the re-payment of his loan by filing this petition.
- M.T. Loan Principal Rs.2,45,700/-
Interest up to 30.09.2005 Rs.20,524/-
- S.T. Cash Credit Principal Rs.1,20,00/-
Interest up to 30.09.2005 Rs.13,775/-
Total Rs. 3,99,999/-
Points for decisions:
On the basis of the above pleadings of the parties the following points are taken up for consideration.
- Is the case maintainable?
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
- Is the complainant entitled to have any relief as prayed for?
Decisions
Point No.1- It is admitted by both the parties that the complainant applied to the Bank for sanction of loan under the Margin Money Scheme and the OP also sectioned the same as the project profile had been vetted by the Dist. Industries Centre, Midnapore and the Dist. Officer of W.B. Khadi & Village Industries Board, Midnapore and the OP also paid some money to the complainant. From the above, it can be said that the complainant is the Consumer under the OP, So the case is maintainable.
Point No.2 It is the case of the complainant that the OP has paid M.T. Loan Rs.90,000/- to the petitioner on 01.03.2003 but he ought to have paid Rs. 1,99,700/- as M.T. Loan on 13.03.2003, but without paying the same, the OP started payment of Cash Credit Loan for which he faced difficulties for conducting his business. The OP on the other hand, stated that the complainant started business on his own land from the year 2000. The business was running in profit. So there was no question of trouble or harassment or difficulties for conducting the business.
We have gone through the record and the documents filed by the parties. From the programmer of Khadi & Village Industries, swe can find that margin money has been sanctioned Rs. 2,89,700/- as fixed capital for land and shed and uilding. But the Op ha paid only Rs.90,000/- to the complainant for the purpose and a sum of Rs. 1,99,700/- has not been paid prior to payment of cash credit loan. The OP stated in his written statement that he has not paide such amount as the complainant was running his business in his own house and shed. It is a fact that direction was given to pay Rs.2,89,700/- as MT Loan. It is not understood under what authority the OP bank has not paid such amount to the complainant. The OP No.1 has violated the terms of the project by not making payment of such amount. It is no doubt that the complainant is running his business in profit which is evident from the documents filed by the OP> But that does not allow the OP for non-release of fund in time though the complainant did not face any loss in his business. Had the total sanctioned amount been released in time, the complainant might have earned more profit. From this aspect. We can say that by withholding the loan amount in part, the OP has violated the terms. This is no doubt deficiency in service on the part of the OP for which he is liable to pay compensation. At the time, we can say that the complainant has claimed Rs. 4 Lakhs, but he has not submitted any corroborative document to establish that he could earn such amount or suffered such loss if total loan amount was made available to him in time. In absence of any supporting document we are in a fix to decide the extent of loss the complainant might have been suffered. Under the circumstances, we say that there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The complainant has also failed to establish his damage up to the extent of Rs. 4 lakhs or any amount.
Point No.3 On the basis of foregoing discussions and material on record we are of opinion that the complainant is entitled to have compensation for deficiency in service on the part of the Op as well as cost up to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- only in total as the complainant failed to prove the damage of Rs. 4 Lakhs or any amount by producing any cogent evidence.
Hence,
Ordered
That the case be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP in part. The complainant is entitled to have Rs.10,000/- only as compensation and costs from the OP. The OP is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant within on e month from this day failing which the complainant is entitled to have the same by way of execution through proper Court of Law after expiry of the period mentioned above.
