DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: BHADRAK

                                                       Present 1. Shri Raghunath Kara, President

                                                                   2. Shri Basanta Kumar Mallick, Member

                                                                   3. Afsara Begum, Member

                     Dated the 29^th day of Sept, 2016

                        C.D.Case No.48 of 2014

Sri Narendra Jena, 42 years

S/O Sadhu Charan Jena

Vill- Barapada, Po- Sendhatira

Ps- Bonth

Dist- Bhadrak                     …………………………………….Complainant

             VERSUS

1. Branch Manager, State Bank of India

Sendhatira Branch

At/Po- Sendhatira

Ps- Bonth

           Dist- Bhadrak

2. Field Officer, State Bank of India

Sendhatira Branch

At/Po- Sendhatira

Ps- Bonth

Dist- Bhadrak

3. Industrial Promotion Officer

Bonth Block, C/o- B.D.O, Bonth

At/Po/Ps- Bonth

Dist- Bhadrak……………………………………Opp Parties

For the Complainant: Sri Narayan Chandra Mohanty & Associates

For the Opp.Parties   : Sri Rabindra Prasad Ray & Associates

Date of hearing       : 11.05.2016

Date of order          : 29.09.2016

SRI BASANTA KUMAR MALLICK, MEMBER

This dispute arises out of the complaint filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service.The background of facts disclosed in the complainant are to the effect that petitioner/complainant is a bonafide customer of State Bank of India, Sendhatira Branch

(OP No. 1). The complainant who was selected for financial assistance under Priminister’s Employment Guarantee Scheme by the DIC Bhadrak and has under gone project training. After successful completion of project training for smooth management of  “DHABA” , the DIC Bhadark sponsored the loan proposal of Rs 4,75,000/- along with detailed project report to extend/advance required amount of loan for construction of shed, acquisition of required furniture and utensils and working capital for day to day management of the said “DHABA” .

             After receipt of the loan proposal, OP No. 1 and 2 sanctioned a loan of Rs 4,75,000/- observing all formalities and the complainant executed all required documents prescribed by OP Bank and released the loan in favour of the complainant in phase manner in three installments of Rs 1,00,000/- each as to enable him to execute the work immediately. The progress of work was also verified by the field officer (OP No.2) ensuring proper utilization of the loan so released in phase manner.

              The complainant stated in the complainant that after release of loan of Rs 3,00,000/- in three installments, the O.Ps did not release the residual amount of loan of Rs 1,75,000/- as a result of which the complainant failed to complete the project and could not be able to manage the “DHABA” due to paucity of funds and thus sustained loss in “DHABA” business. Further  the complainant has also alleged that the total project cost of Rs 4,75,000/- includes subsidy of Rs 2,00,000/- lakhs which was to be provided by the DIC Bhadrak on placing claim by the OP bank but the complainant did not get any information from the O.Ps regarding release and adjustment of subsidy and  credited to the loan account. It is also raised by the complainant that due to inadequate finance given by the O.Ps, the project could not be completed resulting inadequate generation of income which compels the complainant to make default in payment of loan installments. In spite of repeated requests made by the complainant, the O.Ps did not pay any heed to his grievance, rather threatened to initiate legal action against him for recovery of the loan.

Finding no other way, the complainant filed a petition before the legal Aid Authority Bhadrak for redressal of his grievance, which was registered vide Sl No. 9/14 and served notice upon the O.Ps but the O.Ps avoided to appear before the legal Aid Authority, Bhadrak for settlement of the issue. Such act of the opposite parties in not responding the requests of the complainant and also the notice of legal Aid Authorities Bhadrak is an act of willful negligence which amounts to deficiency of service. Complainant has prayed the Forum for issuing direction to OP No. 1 and 2 for release of residual amount of loan, adjustment of subsidy to the loan account and payment of compensation and cost of litigation.                                                    

O.Ps resisted the complaint and contested the claim stating that the complaint is not maintainable in law nor in facts. OP No. 1 & 2 raised that there is no cause of action and the complainant is not a consumer writhing the meaning of C.P. Act. The O.P.s have                                           further stated that the loan proposal for Rs 4,75,000/- was sponsored by D.I.C Bhadrak in favour of Sri Narendra Jena who was selected by the DIC as a beneficiary under PMEGP. After being selected, Sri N.Jena (Complainant) had under gone a training organized by the DIC for management of small hotel and dhaba. The complainant executed a lease agreement with Fakir Chandra Biswal, owner of land on 13.12.2012 for a period of 7 years to construct the Dhaba over plot No. 313 in khata No. 8 under mauza sendhatira for a consideration of Rs 36,000/- per anum (monthly Rs 3,000/-) and after submission of the lease agreement, requested the OP No. 1 & 2 , for release of Rs 1,00,000/- to start construction of “Dhaba” shed. The OP bank disbursed the first installment amount of Rs 1,00,000/- on 31.12.2012. The complainant subsequently submitted some vouchers showing to have utilized the first installment loan and requested the OP Bank for disbursement of second installment loan of Rs 1,00,000/-. Relying on the vouchers submitted by complainant, the OP Bank disbursed the 2^nd  installment loan of Rs 1,00,000/- on 18.02.2013 and there after on 08.03.2013, the complainant furnished some voucher in support of proper utilization of the loan so drawn and also requested the OP No. 1 & 2 foe disbursement of another Rs 1,00,000/- loan which was disbursed by the OP bank on dt. 08.03.2013. In the mean time the branch manager in position got transferred before disbursement of last and final installment of loan. After joining of the new branch manager, the complainant verbally requested the O.P bank for disbursement of loan but the OP No. 1 assured to release the loan after spot verification. On spot verification, OP No. 1 found that there was no construction on the lease land and the complainant shown him another running dhaba stating of his own. On interrogation to the dhaba workers, OP No. 1 came to know that the said dhaba is owned by another person namely Suresh Samal, where the complainant was present. Observing misutilization of the loan, OP No. 1 once again made a joint verification with OP No. 2 in presence of complainant on dt. 05.03.2014 and found that the amount of loan of Rs 3,00,000/- disbursed earlier has been mis utilized fully as the complainant has neither constructed any shed for dhaba nor doing any such activity. Further the OP No. 2 & 3 have also conducted another joint verification of the unit on 26.06.2014 and also found the same as was found earlier verification. Hence the OP No. 1 did not feel wise to disburse the balance amount of undisbursed loan Rs 1,75,000/- for the reason of misutilization. The complainant has filed the dispute with a motive to misappropriate the public money which requires to be dismissed.

OP No. 3 filed written version stating that the averments made at para- 3 of the complainant accusing him to have received Rs 50,000/- towards payment to the loan account of the complainant on the date of drawl of 3^rd phase loan is false, fabricated and having no truth. The complainant has tried to tarnish the reputation of OP No. 3 by raising such a false allegation. As regards notice of legal Aid authority, Bhadrak, OP No.                                                

3 has received the said notice on dt. 05.04.2014 as against the date was fixed for negotiation and settlement on dt. 19.03.2014.

1.  Heard both the parties and perused materials on record. O.Ps resisted the complaint and contested the case stating that the complaint is neither maintainable in law nor in facts. Admittedly, the complainant was selected as a beneficiary by the District Industries Center Bhadrak and has undergone training and on receipt of project proposal, the OP No. 1 has sanctioned a loan of Rs 4,75,000/- for establishment and running of a dhaba in the name and style of “Narendra Dhaba”. It is also admitted by both the parties that in observing required formalities, OP No. 1 and 2 have disbursed Rs 3,00,000/- (Three Lakhs) only 3 installments on dt. 31.12.2012, 18.02.2013 and dt. 08.03.2013. Dispute arose when the OP No. 1 and 2 did not disburse balance amount of undisbursed loan of Rs

1,75,000/- causing loss to the complainant. The OP No. 1 & 2 did not release the loan of Rs 1,75,000/- which caused huge final loss. Whether the O.Ps are having any intention to harsh the complainant in not disbursing the loan, whether the complainant has utilized the loan properly or not and whether OP No. 3 has received any amount from the complainant to deposit the same in the loan account or not? On perusal of materials available on record it is seen that consequent upon transfer of the branch manager (OP No. 1), who had disbursed Rs 3,00,000/- out of the total loan sanctioned of Rs 4,75,000/-, the new branch manager, as successor, also got the request from the complainant regarding disbursement of final installment. It is genuine and justified that the officer of the bank would have to verify, as a new comer, the utilization of the loan so disbursed and progress of the project. For verification of project, the OP No. 1 has gone alone, and second time OP No. 1 & 2 conducted a joint verification and third time OP No. 2 & 3 conducted a joint verification which gave the same result as the complainant has not constructed any shed for dhaba nor doing any such activity. The complainant had executed a lease agreement for 7 years with one Sri Fakir Charan Biswal S/O Late Lambodar Biswal of Sendhatira for construction of shed and establishment of dhaba over plot No. 313, Khata No. 8 in mauza, Sendhatira under Bonth Tahasil and relying on the agreement, the OP No. 1 & 2 have disbursed loan of Rs 3,00,000/- in three installments so as to enable the complainant to construct the Dhaba shed and for acquisition of furnitures and utensils to run the dhaba smoothly. Accordingly the complainant has submitted two applications to OP No. 1 stating that he has utilized the loan availed and requesting the release of further installments. The complainant has also submitted the purchase memo which shows that he has purchased the construction materials and acquired the furniture and utensils required for smooth management of dhaba. But the utilization certificates/reports given by OP No. 1 , 2 & 3 in three separet sheets show that the verification was conducted in presence of the complainant who has not constructed the dhaba shed on the lease land nor he was doing any such

activity. As the complainant has expressed before the O.Ps that he has been managing another dhaba which was also visited by the bank officials including IPO (OP No. 1 , 2 & 3) but when the workers of dhaba were asked about the ownership, they disclosed that the said dhaba is owned by another person named as Suresh Samal.

2.  The complainant has alleged that in spite of repeated requests to OP No. 1 & 2 and written submission made to their higher authorities, none of them responded to his grievance. But the allegation raised by the complainant is found false as the complainant has not adduced any evidence in support of his contention. Thus the complainant failed to prove the allegation.

3. The complainant has also alleged that the OP No. 3 has taken Rs 50,000/- from him to deposit the same to the credit of the loan a/c maintained with O.Ps bank which is vehemently opposed by OP No. 3 in stating that he is neither the employee of O.Ps bank nor assigned with the reasonability for recovery of loan financed to the beneficiary under PMEGP schemes or DIC sponsored proposals. Such allegation is brought by the complainant to blame him and to tarnish his reputation and integrity. In course of hearing and argument, the complainant did not raise this important allegation which leads to believe that such allegation is false and also the complainant failed to adduce any evidence in support of his claim and hence this point of allegation is proved false.

4.  It is pertinent to mention here that neither the complainant nor the O.Ps have     furnished the detailed project report before the Forum so as to enable to know the exact allocation made in the project report for Block Capital and working Capital. If the allocation made for Block capital is more than the amount of loan already disbursed, the loan assistance provided by the bank would have been considered as underfinance, resulting in complete of the project. Since both the parties have not put any emphasis on the under financing of the project cost, we feel it wise to ignore this point.

In view of the above observations, it is held by the Forum that the O.Ps are not found negligent nor any reason of deficiency in providing proper service .Rather the complainant has misutilized the amount of loan so withdrawn for construction of dhaba shed and acquisition of other assets and has submitted some false and fictitious vouchers to mislead the O.Ps for getting his loan released with an ulterior motive to take away the public money. As such the complaint file by the complainant is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. Hence it is ordered.

                                                        ORDER

The complaint be and the same is dismissed against the O.Ps in the circumstances without cost.

The case is pronounced in the open Forum on 29^th day of September, 2016 under my hand and seal of the Forum.