KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO:864/2001 JUDGMENT DATED.22..5..2008 (Appeal filed against the order passed by the CDRF,Thrissur in OP:675/00) PRESENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER 1.General Manager, State Bank of Travancore, Head Office, Thiruvananthapuram. 2.The Regional Manager, State Bank of Travancore, ParamekkavuDevaswomBuilding, Round East, Thrissur-1. : APPELLANTS 3.Deputy General Manager, State Bank of Travancore, Zonal Office, Kozhikkode. 4.Branch Manager, State Bank of Travancore, SSI Branch, Pattraickal, Thrissur. (By Adv: Sri.M. Nizamudeen) V. The Managing Director, KanjirappallyAmusemenPark and Hotels Pvt.Ltd., Athirappally.P.O, Pariyaram, Kanjirappally, : RESPONDENT Chalakkudy, Thrissur Dist-680 072. JUDGMENT SHRI.S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER By the order dated:14..6..2000 of the CDRF Thrissur in OP:675/00, the opposite parties are under orders to refund Rs.1,20,250/- with 18% interest from 20..2..1999 till date of payment along with cost of Rs.1000/-. It is aggrieved by the said directions that the opposite parties have come up in this appeal. 2. The case of the complainant bereft of unnecessary details in the complaint is that the complainant has approached the opposite parties for a term loan of Rs.300.lakhs for development and improvement in the amenities of the park conducted by him. It was also alleged that the opposite parties have agreed to sanction and pay the loan if it is found that the project is viable consequent to a feasibility study of the project by the technical consultancy cell of the bank. An amount of Rs.1,20,250/- was appropriated from the account of the complainant and a feasibility study was conducted by the opposite parties, wherein the complainant had to spent a further sum of Rs.6,228/- as incidental expenses also. It is the case of the complainant that though it was understood that the technical feasibility study was infavour of the complainant, the opposite parties took a recalcitrant attitude and even after repeated requests, the loan was not sanctioned. However the complainant made a representation for the refund of the amount collected from him since inspite of specific recommendations of the technical consultancy cell the bank did not sanction the loan. Since the request for the refund of the expenses was denied, the complaint was filed before the forum praying for directions to the opposite parties to refund the sum of Rs.1,20,250/- with 18% interest from 20..2..1999 till realization and to refund Rs.6,228/- with interest at the rate of 12% from 1..2..2000 till realization and to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- and cost of the complaint. 3. The opposite parties, in their version contended that the sanctioning of the loan and disbursal of the same was entirely within the jurisdiction of the bank and the mere failure to provide financial assistance could not constitute deficiency of service and as such they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint in-limine. However it was also contended before the Forum below that the complainant had agreed for the payment of Rs.1,20,250/- for the technical feasibility study wherein it was further agreed that the amount would not be claimed even if no loan was sanctioned to the complainant. It was also admitted that an amount of Rs.1,20,250/- was debited from the account of the complainant on 9..2..99 and feasibility study was conducted. It is the further contention of the opposite parties that the viability of the project was not the sole criterion for sanctioning the loan and it is for the opposite parties to take a decision considering other aspects also. The opposite parties made it clear that the amount spent by the complainant for the technical feasibility study could in no way be returned to the complainant. 4. The evidence consisted of Exts.P1 to P11 and R1 and R2. 5. We heard the counsel for the appellants and respondent and also perused the lower court records. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued before us that the complaint ought to have been dismissed by the Forum below considering the view that the Forum had no jurisdiction to try the complaint. He relied on the contentions taken in the version and also the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. The decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in Ashok Prabhakar V. State Bank of India and Others [1(1993) CPJ 11 (NC)] was also brought to our notice wherein it is stated thus: “If in the judgment they find that a party is not credit worthy or the project proposed to be financed is unviable, it cannot be maintained that the refusal to finance the unit constitutes deficiency in the banking service to which the industry is entitled to from Banks and Financial institutions.” 7. It is the further case of the learned counsel for the appellants that the complainant as per Ext.R2 has unequivocally agreed that if the loan is not sanctioned the amount recovered towards the fee and out of the pocket expenses would not be refunded. He has also invited out attention to Ext.R1 wherein the Deputy General Manager of the Bank had informed the complainant that the amount of Rs.1,20,250/- and other out of pocket expenses would not be refunded and in such circumstances he canvassed for the position that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint in toto. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted his arguments supporting the findings of the Forum below. However he contended before us that the forum ought to have allowed Rs.6,228/- also which the complainant had spent during the time of the technical feasibility study conducted by the opposite parties. He also submitted before us that the Forum ought to have allowed compensation for the difficulties endured by the complainant because of the defiant and deficient attitude of the opposite parties. 9. On perusing the documents and on hearing the counsel for the appellant and the respondent, we find that it is the admitted case of both the parties that an amount of Rs.1,20,250/- was debited from the account of the complainant towards technical feasibility study. It is also proved that the complainant had given an undertaking by Ext.R2 that even if the loan is not sanctioned complainant is not entitled to claim the expenses met by him for the technical feasibility study arranged by the opposite parties. However it is to be noted that the opposite parties have not produced the report of the technical consultancy cell despite the contention of the complainant that the technical feasibility study was infavour of the complainant and they have recommended the project in toto. It is the responsibility of the opposite parties to disclose the factors which were taken into consideration before rejecting the application for the loan amount of the complainant especially when a feasibility study was conducted at the expense of the complainant. In the version also there is no mention about the result of the technical feasibility study. They have only contended that though the technical consultancy cell has submitted a report, finding the project viable, the Bank’s appropriate authorities had declined the request for the loan on other reasons which they are not ready to divulge. Such a stand taken by the opposite parties cannot be admitted and we would like to point out that the opposite parties had committed grave deficiency of service and unfair trade practice in directing the complainant to pay a large sum of Rs.1,20,250/- for the technical feasibility study thereafter declining the sanction of the loan without assigning cogent reasons. We are in total agreement with the findings and directions of the Forum below that the opposite parties are to return Rs.1,20,250/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 20..2..1999 and also to pay Rs.1000/- as cost to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the order. In the result the appeal is dismissed confirming the order dated:14..6..2000 in OP:675/00 of CDRF, Thrissur. In the nature and circumstances of the case, the appellants are directed to pay Rs.1000/- as cost to the respondent/complainant in the present appeal. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER VL.
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN
......................SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR | | 
