KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

                  VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUANANTHAPURAM                                                                            

                                                       APPEAL 269/07

                                   JUDGMENT DATED 21.5.2010

PRESENT

SMT.VALSALA RARANGADHARAN                --  MEMBER

SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN                                  --  JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR                         --  MEMBER

S.Anilkumar

M,s.A.K.Enterprises,

Neeramankara, Kaimanam,                                     --  APPELLANT

Thiruvananthapuram.

   (By Adv. K.P.Renadive & Ors.)

                     Vs.

The Manager,

Bank of India,

Neeramankara Branch,                                           --  RESPONDENT

Thiruvananthapuram.                

JUDGMENT

M.V.VISWANATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER

          The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 12.4.07 passed by CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in CC.No.325/05.

          2. We heard both sides.

          3. The appellant is the complainant in CC.325/05.  The aforesaid complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent/opposite party Bank in not releasing the balance loan amount of Rs.6 lakhs.  The opposite party bank entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service.  The opposite party contended that there was no sanctioning of the loan for Rs.8  lakhs.  But the complainant was sanctioned a loan of Rs.2 lakhs under cash credit facility.  The opposite party bank has also contended that the complaint is not maintainable as there was no sanctioning of the loan for Rs.8 lakhs as alleged by the complainant.  The Forum below considered the preliminary issue regarding the maintainability of the complaint in CC.325/05 and found that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Bank as there was no such sanctioning of   loan for Rs.8 lakhs.  It was further held that the opposite party Bank had only sanctioned a loan for Rs.2 lakhs under the cash credit facility and the same was disbursed to the complainant.  Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Bank.  The Forum below has also found the pendency  of a Civil Suit which was filed by the opposite party bank for realization of the amount due under cash credit facility.  So, the parties were given the liberty to agitate their issues before the Civil Court.  Thus, the complaint in CC.325/05 was dismissed.

          4. The appellant/complainant has got a case that he applied for a loan of Rs.8 lakhs for improving his export business.  It is the definite case of the appellant/complainant that the respondent/opposite party bank sanctioned a loan of Rs.8 lakhs.  On the other hand, the respondent/opposite party Bank would contend that the Bank had only sanctioned a loan of Rs.2 lakhs under   cash credit facility and the said amount was disbursed to the complainant.  There is no evidence forthcoming from the side of the appellant/complainant to substantiate his case regarding sanctioning of the loan for Rs.8 lakhs. 

          5. There is no scrap of paper available on record to substantiate the case of the appellant/complainant that the respondent/opposite party Bank sanctioned a loan of Rs.8 lakhs.  On the other hand,  the hypothecation agreement executed by the appellant/complainant in favour of the respondent  Bank would make it  clear that the appellant/complainant was sanctioned a loan of Rs.2 lakhs under cash credit facility.  Admittedly, the respondent/Bank disbursed the sanctioned loan of Rs.2 lakhs.  It is admitted by the appellant/complainant that the loan availed for Rs.2 lakhs under the cash credit facility has been defaulted.  It is the case of the appellant/complainant that he defaulted repayment of the said loan of Rs.2 lakhs because of the failure on the part of the  respondent/Bank to disburse the balance loan amount of Rs.6 lakhs.  But there is nothing on record to substantiate the case of the appellant/complainant regarding the sanctioned loan of Rs.8lakhs.  This circumstance would  make it clear that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent/opposite party bank in disbursing Rs.6 lakhs as there was no such sanction for Rs.8 lakhs.  The available materials on record would only show that the loan for Rs.2 lakhs alone was sanctioned under cash credit facility and the same was disbursed to the appellant/complainant.  It is also come out in evidence that the appellant/complainant defaulted repayment of the sanctioned loan of Rs.2 lakhs.    The Forum below is justified in dismissing the complaint in CC.325/05.  So, the present appeal deserves dismissal.

          In the result, the appeal is dismissed.   The impugned order passed by the forum below is confirmed.  There will be no order as to costs.

M.V.VISWANATHAN   --  JUDICIAL MEMBER

 VALSALA RARANGADHARAN     --  MEMBER

 S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR           --  MEMBER

s/L