D.o.F:21/12/2009
D.o.O:15/7/2011
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.NO. 276/09
Dated this, the 15th day of July 2011
PRESENT:
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
M.Shankaranarayana Bhat,
Mogasale House, Koloyoor PO, : Complainant
Manjeshwar,Kasaragod
(in person)
1.The Manager, Syndicate Bank,
Vorkady, Po.Vorkady,
2. Lead District Manager,
Syndicate Bank, Kasaragod.
3. Regional Manager,Syndicate Bank, Kannur. : Opposite parties
4. The District Collector,Kasaragod
(Govt.Pleader)
5. Chairman, Syndicate Bank,Manipal.
(Ops 1to3&5-Adv.Sadananda Kamath, Kasaragod)
ORDER
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ: PRESIDENT
The skeletal facts of the complaint are as follows:
Complainant Sri.Sankaranarayana Bhat who is a beneficiary of Vidharbha Package scheme had submitted an application for loan to Ist opposite party with whom he had loan transaction. But without assigning any reason his loan application is rejected and 5% commission is also asked by first opposite party to sanction the loan. The loan under Vidharbha package is promoted by the government in order to help the farmers to purchase milching cows in a subsidised rate. Against the denial of loan, complainant made complaints to 2nd to 5th opposite parties. But was no favourable result. Opposite party No.3 even refused his complaint sent by registered post. The 4th opposite party being the chairman of Vidharbha package without conducting any enquiry and by relying on the version of opposite parties 1 to 3informed the complainant that he has not applied for the loan and he has not taken any interest when he came to know that the milching cows shall be purchased from outside Kerala state which is a requirement to grant loan under the Vidharbha package though he purchased the cow from Belthangadi in Bantwal which is situated in Karnataka state. Therefore alleging deficiency in service complainant filed this complaint under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
2 Opposite parties 1 to 3 and 5 filed version. For 4th opposite party Govt. Pleader filed a memo stating that 4th Opposite Party is adopting the contention of opposite parties 1 to 3&5.
According to opposite parties the Dairy loan under the Vidharbha package introduced in the Bank to help eligible small farmers who sustained loss and in debt and find it difficult to eke out living and to grant such farmers financial facility to purchase milching cow of higher yield, sell the milk and make a living. As per the scheme the eligible farmer customers should purchase milching cows from outside the state to help more milk generation in Kasaragod district. To get the facility under the scheme the eligible farmer should file an application for such facility and must purchase animals from out side state and get certificate from the concerned Veterinary doctor. The complainant neither filed any formal application requesting for such a facility nor did he purchase the animals from out side the Kerala state. Therefore his case could not be proceeded and there was absolutely no laches or dereliction of duty or short coming in the service rendered by opposite parties. The complaint being a vexatious one is liable to be dismissed with compensatory costs.
3. On filing the version complainant filed proof affidavit in support of his case and faced cross examination by the learned counsel for opposite parties Sri Sadananda Kamath. Exts A1 to A10 marked through complainant. On the side of opposite parties 1 to 3 & 5 Ext.B1, proceedings of 76th BLBC meeting marked. Both sides heard and documents perused carefully.
4. Ext.A1 is the copy of the application form dt.7/1/08 for applying for the benefit under special Live stock Package (Vidharbha Package) filled by the complainant. But there is nothing to show that the original of the said application is submitted before the Ist opposite party. Ext.A2 is the detailed call report of the complainant ‘s land line telephone during the period from 1/3/08 to 30/4/2008. Ext.A3 is the copy of the complaint submitted by the complainant before the 3rd opposite party regarding the non sanctioning of loan. Ext.A4 is the copy of the application filed by the complainant before 4th opposite party under RTI Act seeking information regarding the provisions if any conferred with Syndicate Bank or NMG Bank to refuse loan to a beneficiary under the Vidharbha package. Ext.A5 (a) is the reply of 4th opposite party, the District Collector to the complainant dtd.31/10/08 stating that the complainant has enquired with Ist opposite party whether they could sanction dairy loan under the Vidharbha package for purchasing animals locally and when it was informed that the loan will be sanctioned provided the animal is purchased from out side the state and there after the complainant had not showed any interest for the loan. Ext.A5(b) is seen dated 5/8/05( the correct date may be 5/8/08) is another reply given by 4th opposite party to complainant in which it is stated that complainant has not given any application in the Syndicate bank for availing loan for milching animal. Ext.A6 is a recommendation letter dated nil issued by Veterinary Surgeon of Meenja to the Secretary /Manager of Vorkady Service Co-op Bank Ltd stating that the complainant is one of the beneficiary of Vidharbha package dairy unit in Meenja grama Panchayath and for doing the necessary to grant him loan. Ext.A7 is the copy of loan sanctioning certificate dtd.5.5.08 issued from Vorkady Service Co-op Bank Ltd to the Veterinary Surgeon of Meenja. Ext.A8 is a letter issued by Ist opposite party to complainant dtd 14/7/08 showing the balance of the education loan availed by the daughter in which it is specifically mentioned that the loan dues are paid before due dates. Ext.A9 is a declaration of one Udayanarayana Bhat of Vittala in Bantawal stating that he has sold his cross breed cow to complainant Sankara Narayana Bhat. Ext.A10 is an undelivered registered postal article addressed to 3rd opposite party issued by complainant. It is seen that the said postal article has been refused by the addressee and therefore it is returned to the sender. Complainant has been subjected to cross examination on the proof affidavit filed by him by the learned counsel for opposite parties Sri.Sadananda Kamath. PW1 during cross examination has deposed that he used to pay all the loan dues before time. He denied the suggestion that Vidharbha package is intended to aid the poor farmers who have no means to purchase a cow. He denied the suggestion that he had not filed any application before Ist opposite party for granting loan under Vidharbha package. PW1 further denied the suggestion that Ext.A1 is a concocted document. PW1 also deposed that he has availed loan under Vidharbha package from Vorkady Service Co-op Bank Ltd . He denied the suggestion that Ist opposite party bank refused to issue loan application form since he already availed the loan from Vorkady Service Co-op Bank Ltd. During cross examination PW1 detailed the procedure of granting loan under the Vidharbha package. As per the procedure the loan application has to be submitted to the Grama Panchayath. They will forward the application to the implementing committee of the scheme. The implementing authority will sanction the loan and the sanction letter will be issued to the veterinary surgeon of concerned Panchayath. The veterinary surgeon will issue letter to the willing bank. The bank will reply to the veterinary surgeon showing the eligibility of the applicant for the loan. Then the surgeon will forward the bankers’ letter to the implementing committee and the committee will disburse the amount to the concerned bank. There after the application form kept in the bank has to be filled. Afterwards bank will issue cheque to the seller of the cow. He has admitted that he used to file complaint whenever he had grievances against the services availed by him and on 24/4/08 he made complaint to the legal office of Syndicate Bank Kannur over telephone.
5. PW1 further deposed that he had not produced documents to show that the rate of interest in Co-operative Bank is higher than that of Syndicate Bank for the loan under the Vidharbha package. PW1 denied the suggestion that Ist opposite party has acted as per the direction of the Block Level Bankers Committee and hence they had not committed any deficiency in their service. He also denied that since the block level bankers committees recommendation is not followed and he already availed a loan from Vorkady Service Co-op Bank Ltd , he did not approach opposite party bank and subsequently his loan is denied. PW1 also deposed that he had no documents to prove that Vorkady Bank manager asked commission.
6. From the statements of PW1 it is clear that Ist opposite party bank has denied him the loan under the Vidharbha package to which he is selected as beneficiary. It is the case of opposite parties that the complainant did not submit any application for loan before their bank and he did not purchase the cow from outside the state. But the Exts produced, particularly Ext.A1 (which is a loan application issued from the Bank) by the complainant to prove that he had submitted application for the loan before the Ist opposite party bank and he purchased the cow from out side the state of Kerala.
7. Then the crucial question to be answered by opposite parties is why they refused to grant him loan under the Vidharbha package to which he is selected as one of the beneficiary. It is true that complainant obtained the loan under the Vidharbha package from Vorkady Service Co-op Bank Ltd. That itself shows that complainant was an eligible beneficiary of the said loan and he was not disqualified otherwise. It is also a fact that rate of interest in co-operative banks are higher than that of nationalized banks. So usually a loanee will give preference to a bank which charges only lower rate of interest for their loans. In this case the Ist opposite party bank refused him loan and there fore he obtained it from Vorkady Service Co-op Bank Ltd.
8. The opposite parties admit that the complainant had already availed other loans from their bank and he is one of their good customers and he is repaying the installments much earlier than the stipulated dates. Therefore we do not find any reason for not sanctioning him the loan under the Vidharbha package.
9. The complainant in his affidavit also asserted that the Ist opposite party bank authorities asked him 5% commission for sanctioning the loan letter. We find there is much force in this allegation and do not find any other reason to reject his application.
10. The breadth and depth of corruption in India is ever increasing. Corruption has come to affect every citizen in the country. Bribes have to be paid for ration cards, passbooks, building permits and for doing even normal business. No paper moves from one table to another without extraneous considerations. Street vendors and coolies are forced to pay bribes for exercising their fundamental rights. Common people are forced to pay commissions to get their subsidized benefits under different social welfare schemes. While the high level corruption is plundering the public exchequer distorting government policies and creating the criminal plutocrats dominating all the institutions, low level corruption is making life impossible for common citizens.
11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in one of its Land mark judgment Luknow Development Authority vs. M.K.Gupta reported in 1994 AIR 787 SC) has observed.
‘’….Under our constitution sovereignty vests in the people. Every link of the constitutional machinery is obliged to people oriented. No functionary in exercise of statutory power can claim immunity except to the extent protected by the statute itself. Public Authorities acting in violation of statutory provisions oppressively are accountable for their behavior before authorities created under the statute like the commission or the courts entrusted with the responsibility to maintain rule of law…’’
‘’ ….The servants of governments are also the servants of people and the use of their power must always be subordinate to their duty of service. A public functionary if he acts maliciously or oppressively and the exercise of power results in harassment and agony then it is not an exercise of power but its abuse. No law provides protection against it . He who responsible for it must suffer it. Compensation may arise even when the officer discharges his duty honestly and bonafide. But when it arises due to arbitrary or capricious behaviour then it loses its individual character and assumes social significance, harassment of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impermissible. It may harass him personally but the injury to society is far more grievous. Crime and corruption thrive and the prosper in the society due to lack of public resistance. Nothing is more damaging than the feeling of helplessness. An ordinary citizen instead of complaining and fighting succumbs to the pressure of undesirable function in offices instead of standing against it. Therefore the award of compensation for harassment by public authorities not only compensates the individual, satisfies him personally but helps in curing social evil. It may result in improving the work culture and help in changing the out look…’’
’’……. Today the issue thus is not only of award of compensation but who should bear the brunt. The concept of authority and power exercised by public functionaries has many dimensions. It has undergone tremendous change with passage of time and change in socio economic out look. The authority empowered to function under a statute while exercising power discharges public duty. It has to act to sub serve general welfare and common good. In discharging this duty honestly and bonafide, loss may accrue to any person and he may claim compensation which may in circumstances be payable. But where the duty is performed capriciously and the exercise of power results in harassment and agony then the responsibility to pay the loss determined should be whose? In a modern society no authority can arrogate to itself the power to act in a manner which is arbitrary. It is unfortunate that matters which require immediate attention linger on and the man in the street is made to run from one end to other with no result. The culture of window clearance appears to be totally dead. Even in ordinary matters a common man who has neither the political backing nor the financial strength to the inaction in public oriented departments gets frustrated and it erodes the credibility of the system…..’’
This judgment has been delivered by the Hon’ble Apex court in 1993. But the present picture of the country is more worse.
12. Now coming to the merits of the case it is settled that as far as the disbursement of loan is concerned, it is the discretion of the bank as it is the sole prerogative of the financial institution whether to lend or not and the Consumer Forum could not interfere in the same. But in this case it is seen that the complainant has been ruthlessly neglected without any cause though he was selected as a beneficiary of the Vidharbha package. 4th opposite party who is vested with the authority, being the chairman of the implementing committee of Vidharbha package, to probe in to the complaint submitted by him took decision on it arbitrarily without even giving a notice to complainant and thereby violating the fundamental legal principle audi alteram partem( hear the other side). The lead bank manager even shown the audacity to refuse the registered complaint issued by complainant. All this would indicate that the opposite parties were afraid of some thing as a result of an unfair act done by them.
The fact that the complainant subsequently availed the Vidharbha package loan from another Bank does not give them any escape from their liability to redress the grievance of the complaint.
Therefore we find deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties which they were bound to provide to the complainant. We appreciate the complainant Sri.Sankara Narayana Bhat for filing this complaint against the injustice suffered by him without making a prayer for any monetary relief.
In the circumstances we direct the opposite parties not to repeat the kind of deficient nature of service rendered by them to the complainant and also to consider the beneficiaries and loan applicants in a fair and transparent manner without leaving a room for any complaints in future. However in the circumstances the opposite party No.1 is directed to pay cost of ` 3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order.
Exts:
A1- copy of the application form dt.7/1/
A2 - detailed call report of the PW1 ‘s land line telephone
A3- copy of the complaint submitted by PW1 before the 3rd OP
A4 - copy of the application filed by PW1 before 4th opposite party under RTI Act.
A5 (a) is the reply of 4th opposite party,
A5(b)-copy of another reply given by 4th OP
A6 - recommendation letter issued by Veterinary Surgeon of Meenja to the Secretary /Manager of Vorkady Service Co-op Bank Ltd
A7 - copy of loan sanctioning certificate
A8 - l dtd 14/7/08 letter issued by Ist opposite party to PW1
A9 - declaration of one Udayanarayana Bhat
A10 - undelivered registered postal article addressed to 3rd OP
B1- proceedings of 76th BLBC meeting
PW1-M.Shankaranarayana Bhat-complainant
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
eva /Forwarded by Order/
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
Complainant who is a beneficiary of Vidharbha Package under the scheme to Ist opposite party with whom complainant had loan transaction. But without assigning any reason his loan application is rejected and 5% commission is also asked by first opposite party to sanction the loan. The loan under Vidharbha package is promoted by the government in order to help the farmers to purchase mulching cows in a subsidized rate. Against the demand of loan the
complainant made complaints to 2nd to 5th opposite parties. But was of no favourable action. Opposite party No.3 even refused the complaint sent by registered post. The 4th opposite party being the chairman of Vidharbha package without conducting any enquiry by relying on the version of opposite
parties 1 to 3informed the complainant that he has not applied for the loan and he has not taken any interest when he came to know that the mulching
cows shall be purchased from outside Kerala state which is a requirement to grant loan under the Vidharbha package though he purchased the cow from Belthangode Bantwal Karnataka state. Therefore alleging deficiency in service complainant filed this complaint under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection
Act.
2 Opposite parties 1 to 3 and 5 filed version . For 4th opposite party Govt. Pleader filed a memo stating that he adopting the contention of opposite
parties 1 to 3&5.
According to opposite parties the Dairy loan under the Vidharbha package introduced in the Bank to help eligible small farmers who sustained loss
and debt and find it difficult to eke out living and to grant such farmers financial facility to purchase mulching cow of higher yield, sell the milk and make
a living. As per the scheme the eligible farmer customers shall be directed that they should purchase mulching cows from outside the state to help more
milk generation in Kasaragod district. To get a facility under the scheme the eligible farmer should file an application for such facility and must purchase
animals from out side state and gtet certificate from the concern ed Vetiniary doctor. The complainant neither filed any formal application requesting for
such a facility nor he purchased the animals from out side the Kerala state. Therefore his case could not be proceeded and there was absolutely no lachs
or derelication of duty or short coming in the service on the part of opposite parties. The complaint is being a vexatious one is liable to be dismissed with compensatory costs.
3. On filing the version complainant filed proof affidavcit in support of his case and faced cross examination by the learned counsel for opposite parties Sri Sadananda Kamath. Exts A1 to A10 marked through complainant. On the side of opposite parties 1 to 3 & 5 Exts.B1 marked. Both sides heard and documents perused carefully.
4. Ext.A1 is the copy of the application form dt.7/1/08 to apply for benefit under special Live stock Package (Vidharbha Package) of complainant. But
there is nothing to show that the original of the said application is submitted before the Ist opposite party. Ext.A2 is the detailed call report of the
complainant ‘s land line telephone for the period from 1/3/08 to 30/4/2008. Ext.A3 is the copy of the complaint submitted by the complainant before the 3rd opposite party regarding the non sanctioning of loan. Ext.A4 is the copy of the application filed by the complainant before 4th opposite party under RTI Act seeking information regarding the provisions of any conferred with Syndicate Bank or NMG Bank to refuse loan to the beneficiary under the vidharbha package. Ext.A5(a) is the reply of 4th opposite party the District Collector to complainant dtd.31/10/08 stating that the complainant has enquired with Ist opposite party whether they cn sanction dairy loan under the vidharbha package for purchasing animals locally and when it was informed that the loan will be sanctioned provided the animal is purchased fom out side the state and there after the complainant had not show any interest for the loan. Ext.A5(b) is seen dated 5/8/05( the correct date may be 5/8/08) is another reply given by 4th opposite party to complainant in which it is stated that complainant has not
given any application in the Syndicate bank for availing loan for mulching animal. Ext.A6 is dated nil issued by Veteniary Surgeon of Meenja to the Secreatry /Manager of Vorkady Service Co-op Bank Ltd stating that the complainant is one of the beneficiary of vidharbha package diary unit in Meenja
grama panchayath and to the necessary to grant loan. Ext.A7 is the copy of loan sanctioning certificate dtd.5.5.08 issued from Vorkady Service
Co-op Bank Ltd to the Vetiniary Surgeon of Meenja. Ext.A8 is a letter issued by Ist opposite party to complainant dtd 14/7/08 showing the balance of the education loan availed by the daughter in which it is specifically mentioned that the loan dues are paid loan amount before dues date. Ext.A9 is a
declaration of one Udayanarayana Bhat of Vittala Bantawak stating that he has sold his cross breed cow to complainant Sankara Narayana Bhat.
Ext.A10 is an undelivered registered postal article addressed to 3rd opposite party issued by complainant. It is seen that the said postal article has been
refused by the addressee and therefore it is returned to the sender. Complainant has been subjected to cross examination on the proof affidavit filed by
him by the learned counsel for opposite parties. PW1 during cross examination has deposed that he used to pay all the loan dues before time. He denied the
suggestion that vidharbha package is intended to aid the poor farmers who have no means to purchase a cow. He denied the suggestion that he had not
filed any application before Ist opposite party for granting loan under vidharbha package. PW1 further denied the suggestion that Ext.A1 is a concoted document. PW1 further deposed that he has availed loan under vidharbha package from Vorkady Service Co-op Bank Ltd . He den ied the suggestion
that Ist opposite party bank refused to issue loan application form since he already availed the loan from Vorkady Service Co-op Bank Ltd. During cross examination PW1 detailed the procedure of granting loan under the vidharbha package. As per the procedure the loan application has to be submitted to
the Grama panchayath. They will forward the application to the implementary committee of the scheme. The implementary authority will sanction the loan
and the sanctiuon letter will be issued to the veterinary surgeon of concerned panchayaths. The veteneary surgeon will issue letter to the willing bank. The
bank will reply to the vetenary surgeon showing the eligibility of the applicant for the loan. Then the surgon will forward the bankers’ letter to the
impelementing committee and will disburse the amount to the concerned bank. There after the application form kept in the bank has to be filled.
Thereafter bank will issue cheque to the seller of the cow. He has admitted that he used to file complaint whenever he had ….. and on 24/4/08
he made complaint to the legal office of Syndicate Bank Kannur through telephone.
PW1 further deposed that he had not produced documents to show that the rate of interest in Co-operative Bank is higher than that of Syndicate
Bank for the loan under the Vidharbha package. PW1 denied the suggestion that Ist opposite party has acted as per the direction of the Block
Level Bankers Committee and hence they had not committed any deficiency in their service. He also denied that since the block level bankers
committees recommendation is not followed and he already availed a loan from Vorkady Service Co-op Bank Ltd , he did not approach opposite
party bank and subsequently his loan is denied. PW1 also deposed that he had no documents to prove that Vorkady Bank manager asked commission.
From the statements of PW1 it is clear that Ist opposite party bank has denied him the loan under the vidharbha package to which he is selected
as a beneficiary. It is the case of opposite parties that the complainant did not submit any application for loan before their bank and he did not purchase
the cow from outside the state. But the exts produced by the complainant prove that he had submitted application for the loan before the Ist opposite
party bank and he purchased the cow from out side the state of kerala.
Then the crucial question to be answer by opposite parties is why did they refuse to grant him loan under the vidharbha package to which he is one
of the beneficiary. It is true that complainant obtained the loan under the vidharbha package from Vorkady Service Co-op Bank Ltd. That itself shows that fomplainant was an eligible beneficiary of the said loan and he was not disqualified otherwise . It is also a fact that rate of interest in co-operative banks are higher than the nationalized banks. So usually a loanee will give preference to a bank which charges only lower rate of interest for their loans. In this case
since the Ist opposite party bank refused him loan he obntained it from Vorkady Service Co-op Bank Ltd.
The opposite parties admit that the complainant had already availed other loans from their bank and he is one of their good customer and he is repaying the instalments much earlier than the stipulated dates. Therefore we do not find any reason for not sanctioning him the loan under the vidharbha package.
The complainant in his affidavit also absented that the Ist opposite party bank authorities asked him 5% commission for sanctioning the loan letter. We find there is much force for this allegation.
The breadth and depth of corruption in India is ever increasing . Corruption has come to affect every citizens in the country. Bribes have to be paid for ration cards, passbooks, building permits and for doing even normal business. Street venders and coolies are forced to pay bribes for exercising their fundamental rights. Common people are forced to pay bribes even to get their subsidized benefits under different social welfare schemes. While the high level
corruption is plundering the public exchequer distorting government policies and creating the criminal plutocrats dominating all the institutions, low level corruption is making life impossible for common citizens . The Hon’ble Apex Court in one of its Land mark judgment Luknow Development Authority vs. M.K.Gupta reported in 1994 AIR 787 SC) has observed…’’
Under our constitution soveringnity vests in the people . Every link of the constitutional machinery is obliged to people oriented. No functionary is exercise of statutory power can claim immunity except to the extent protected by the statute itself. Public Authorities acting in violation of statutory provisions oppressively are accountable for their behavior before authorities created under the statute like the commission or the courts entrusted with the responsibility of maintain rule of law…’’
‘’ ….The servents of governments are also the servants of people and the use of their power must always be subordinate to their duty of service. A public functioning if he acts maliciously or oppressively and the exercise of power results in harassment and agony then it is not an exercise of power but its abuse. Bo law provides protection against it . He who responsible for it must suffer it. Compensation may arise even when the officer discharges his duty honestly and bonafide. But when it arises due to arbitrary or capricious behaviour then it loses its individual character and assumes social significance, harassment of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impermissible . It may harass him personally but the injury to society is far more grevious . Crime and corruption thrive and the prosper in the society due to lack of public resistance . Nothing is more damaging than the feeling of helplessness. An ordinary citizen instead of complaining and fighting succumbs to the pressure of undesirable function in offices instead of standing against it. Therefore the award of compensation for harassment by public authorities not only compensation the individual , satisfied him personally but helps in curing social evil. It may result in improving the work culture and help in chaining the out look’’……
‘’…..’’……. Today the issue this is not only of award of compensation but who should bear the brunt . The concept of authority and power exercised
by public functionaries has many dimensions. It has undergone tremendous change with passage of time and change in socio economic out look.
The authority empowered to function under a statute while exercising power discharges public duty. It has to act to subserve general welfare and common good. In discharging this duty honestly and bonafide, loss may accrue to any person and he may claim compensation which may in circumstances be payable. But where the duty is performed capriciously and the exercise of power results in harassment and agony then the responsibility to pay the loss determined should be whose? In a modern society no authority can arrogate to itself the power to act in a manner which is arbitrary. It is unfortunate that matters which require immediate attention longer on and the man in the street is made to run from one end to other with no result. The culture of window clearance appear to be totally dead. Even in ordinary matters a common man who has neither the political backing nor the financial strength to the inaction in public orented departments gets frustrated and it erodes the credibility of the system…..’’
This judgment has been delivered by the Hon’ble Apex court in 1993. But the present picture of the country is for more worsened.
Now coming to the merits of the case it is settled that as far as the disbursement of loan is concerned it is the discretion of the bank as it is the sole
prerogative of the financial institution whether to lend or not and the Consumer Forum could not interfere in the same. But in this case it is seen that the complainant has been ruthlessly neglected without any cause though he was selected as a beneficiary of the Vidharbha package. 4th opposite party
who is vested with the authority to being the chairman of the implementry committee of Vidharbha package to probe in to the complaint submitted by
him look decision on it arbitrarily violating the legal maximum audit alteram partem( hear the otherside). The lead banl manager even shown the audacity to refuse the registered complaint issued by complainant. All this would indicate that the opposite parties has done some thing which is unfair in the loan
application of the complainant.
The fact that the complainant subsequently availed the vidharbha package loan does not give them no escape from their liability to redress the grievance
of the complaint.
Therefore we find deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties which they were bound to provide to the complainant. We appreciate the
complainant Sri.Sankara Narayana Bhar for filing this complaint against the injustice suffered by him without making any prayer for monetary relief.
In the circumstances we direct the opposite parties not to repeat the kind of deficient nature of service rendered by them to the complainant and also
to consider the beneficiaries and loanee applicants in a fair and transparent manner without leaving a room for complainant in future. However in the circumstances the opposite party No.1 is directed to pay cost of 3000/- to the complainant within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
