KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL:88/2002 JUDGMENT DATED.12..6..2008 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SHRI.S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER Suseela Amma, Proprietrix, M/S Sakthi Mills, : APPELLANT Kalachazhikathu Kavanadu.P.O, Kollam. (By Adv: M/S Kalkura) V. 1. The General Manager, District Industries Centre, Asramom, Kollam. 2. The Branch Manager, : RESPONDENTS Central Bank of India, Kadappakkada branch, Kadappakkada.P.O, Kollam. (By Adv: Sri.A.Jacob) JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in OP:232/2000 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. The complainant had sought for a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and cost alleging that the opposite parties failed to honour the commitment to disburse the loan amount of Rs.1,80,000/-. The 1st opposite party is the General Manager of District Industries Centre and the 2nd opposite party, the Central Bank of India. The Forum has directed the 2nd opposite party/Bank to disburse the loan amount to the complainant on production of necessary documents as required by the bank and directed the 1st opposite party to realize advance amount from the complainant after 3 months if the 2nd opposite party failed to disburse the loan amount for the reason that the complainant failed to produce sufficient documents. The order of the Forum is dated:21..12..2001. It is the case of the appellant/complainant that receipt of the loan amount after a lapse of more than two years would not serve any purpose as it would not be possible to revive the unit after such a delay. 2. The complainant was running an SSI unit engaged in the sale of flour, curry powder and masala powder. The unit was declared sick on 9..10..1997. As per the revival scheme at the initiative of the 1st opposite party the total amount required was estimated at Rs.2.9.lakhs, It was the 2nd opposite party/Bank that had to sanction the term loan. The bank in pursuance of the revival scheme sanctioned Rs.1.8 lakhs as term loan and the 1st opposite party, the District Industries Centre (hereinafter to be mentioned as DIC) sanctioned a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- ie, Rs.45,000/- towards the start up capital and Rs.55,000/- as margin money loan. All the necessary documents were submitted before the opposite parties. The margin money and start up capital altogether amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- was disbursed to the complainant through the 2nd opposite party/Bank. According to the complainant she spent Rs.60,000/- towards purchase and printing of polythene packing covers and also Rs.60,000/- for repairs and maintenance of the machinery. She managed to gather Rs.10,000/- for this purpose in addition to the amount granted by the 1st opposite party. The grievance of the complainant is that the 2nd opposite party/Bank did not release the term loan amount of Rs.1.8.lakhs. It is her case on account of the failure of the opposite parties to get the loan amount released, she sustained heavy loss. The project could not be put into function. Further the DIC has initiated steps to realize Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant with interest by RR proceedings. 3. The 1st opposite party/DIC has filed a version admitting the sick unit revival package etc. It is the contention that the complainant ought not to have utilized the margin money and start up expenses without getting released the term loan amount. As per order dated:5..12..1997 of the Director of Industries and Commerce the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was sanctioned as margin money loan and start up expenses on 7..1..1998. Orders were issued to draw and disburse the amount by DD through the 2nd opposite party. Subsequently the amount was drawn by the complainant. It was only when the Industries Extension Officer, Anchalummoodu Block was asked to report about the utilization of the loan amount, it was found that the term loan amount sanctioned by the 2nd opposite party has not been disbursed. Withdrawal of the margin loan amount without disbursal of the term loan amount is not permissible. The 2nd opposite party should not have released the margin loan amount without releasing the principal loan. The complainant had also executed an agreement on 7..1..1998 in this regard. After the report of the Industries Extension Officer the district level rehabilitation committee again met on 22..12..1999 and the Bank expressed their readiness to disburse the term loan of Rs.1.8.lakhs. But the complainant wanted a higher amount as the earlier assessment of 2.9 lakhs was stated to be not adequate. Then the complainant was asked to submit a revised project report to the bank within two weeks. But the complainant did not comply with the above direction. The complainant was again asked to attend the committee meetings, but she did not. She was again directed to submit revised project report but she has not complied with the same. Taking a lenient view and promotional attitude the complainant was requested to attend the meeting on 14..3..2000, in order to sort out the matters. Although she did not attend the meeting she was again directed to submit a revised project report to the bank. The District Collector is the Chairman of the District Level Rehabilitation Committee. Although opportunities were given to the complainant to submit a revised project report she has not availed the same. 4. The 2nd opposite party/Bank has contended that the Bank was ready to disburse the loan amount but the complainant did not appear for executing the necessary documents. The loan was sanctioned on 17..11..1997 itself and the same was intimated to the complainant by letter dated:16..12..1997 which was received by the complainant. Subsequently the husband of the complainant came to the bank and received back the title deeds on 8..12..1998. 5. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1 the husband of the complainant, DW1 the officer concerned of the DIC, Ext.P1 to P17 and D1 to D13. It is the contention of the counsel for the 2nd opposite party/ bank that the complainant approached the Forum only when the 1st opposite party took steps to realize the amount disbursed. One of the prayers in the complaint is to direct the 1st opposite party not to proceed with the RR proceedings till the disposal of the complaint. Ext.P5 is the sanction order of the term loan issued by the 2nd opposite party. In the sanction order it is mentioned that the machinery/stock will be the primary security and 15 cents of land with building in Sy.No:387/12 in Sakthikulangara village should be mortgaged to the bank towards the collateral security. It is also mentioned that bills and stamped receipts for the whole amount should be collected from suppliers and the same should be submitted to the bank wherever is applicable. It is also mentioned that the machinery, building etc should be insured fully with the bank clause infavour of the 2nd opposite party. Encumbrance certificate till date should be produced. 6. PW1 the complainant has testified that she approached the bank several times and also intimated the fact to the 1st opposite party but they failed to see that the term loan amount is disbursed. Ext.P12 is the letter dated:12..8..1998 addressed to the DIC mentioning that the Manager of the 2nd opposite party is not releasing the amount and that he is delaying the matter on one pretext or the other. According to DW1 the 1st opposite party has not received the above letter. Subsequently she has sent Ext.P13 lawyer notice to which the bank has replied raising the same contentions as raised herein. Ext.P15 is the petition filed by the complainant before the District Collector, which is dated 12..10..99. Nothing has been brought out in the cross-examination of PW1 to indicate as she is deposing falsehood. The 2nd opposite party has not adduced any evidence although PW1 was cross-examined by the counsel for the 2nd opposite party. 7. We find that there is lapse on the part of the opposite parties in not disbursing the loan amount by the 2nd opposite party/bank and in not monitoring the revival scheme properly by the 1st opposite party. It is also to be noted that the case of the complainant also cannot be believed as such. There is considerable delay in filing the complaint. The complaint has been filed only on 7..4..2000 ie, after the 1st opposite party initiated RR proceedings. There ought not have been specific direction to the 2nd opposite party not to release the margin loan amount and start up capital before releasing the instalments of the term loan amount. There is no evidence that the complainant has taken any steps to see the term loan is disbursed by approaching the superior officers of the 2nd opposite party. It appears that she kept quiet and till the 1st opposite party initiated the RR proceedings. The relief sought in the complaint is not for disbursal of the loan amount but to see that the DIC would not initiate steps to recover the margin loan amount etc. It also stands established that the 2nd opposite party/bank refused to release the loan amount in time. In this regard the evidence of PW1 appears credible. 8. In the circumstances we find that the order of the Forum is liable to be modified. The 2nd opposite party/bank is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant with interest at 12% from the date of the complaint. The direction against the 1st opposite party is setaside. The 2nd opposite party is directed to pay the amount of compensation within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount will carry interest at 16%. There will be no order as to costs. JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER | 
